Ali Alyami: What the Saudis Want in Lebanon

Ali Alyami, of the Center for Democracy and Human Rights in Saudi Arabia, has emailed this analysis:

...the Saudis feel threatened by Iran and that’s why they would like to see Hezbollah take over Lebanon. They know if Hezbollah control all of Lebanon, the Israelis will destroy them, hit Syria if it interferes and takes out Iran’s nuclear installations. All of this works to the benefit of the absolute and theocratic Saudi princes and their religious extremist allies. After all this is cleared up, the Saudis will go back and build Lebanon’s infrastructure and implement the Shariah law. The biggest losers in all of this are the defenseless Lebanese Christians most, if not all, of whom will leave the country instead of being enslaved by the Wahhabis. This is a tragedy in the making. The West will either give lip service or look the other way. In the long run, Israel will not benefit from this scenario either.

In the mean time, the Saudis are working closely with the Iranians now to unite all Muslims against the West.

Memo to Dick Cheney: Maybe "Spheres of Influence" Aren't Such a Bad Idea?

More fallout from the Russian-Georgian war--and Dick Cheney's anti-Russian saber-rattling. Drudge tipped this Breitbart.com item:

Two Tu-160 Russian strategic bombers landed Wednesday at an airbase in Venezuela to take part in military exercises, Russian news agencies reported, citing the Russian defence ministry.

Here's what Wikipedia has to say about the planes:

The Tupolev Tu-160 (NATO reporting name Blackjack) is a supersonic, variable-geometry heavy bomber designed by the Soviet Union. Similar to the B-1 Lancer but with far greater speed, range and payload, it is one of the heaviest combat aircraft ever built.

Introduced in 1987, it was the last Soviet strategic bomber designed, but production of the aircraft still continues, with at least 16 currently in service with the Russian Air Force.

Its pilots call the Tu-160 the “White Swan”, due to the surprising maneuverability and antiflash white finish of the aircraft.

It looks like the Bush administration is being hoisted upon the petard of its own rhetoric. If "spheres of influence" are a bad idea, then has Bush cancelled the Monroe Doctrine? That seems to be what the Russians are testing here. And if the Monroe Doctrine is still valid--it defines an American sphere of influence--what principle is there behind the statement that Russia is not permitted a sphere around its borders? And if not a matter of principle, rather of power, then it looks like Russia means to test American power.

So, it looks like either Dick Cheney backs down--or there is a new power struggle with Russia, maybe even a new Cuban missile crisis, this time in Venezuela. Which, ironically, may help John McCain--unless the Kremlin is in close touch with David Axelrod about what is going on in Latin America...

Fouad Ajami: Obama Really Means Change

Ajami calls Obama a "cosmopolitan" in today's Wall Street Journal:

So the Obama candidacy must be judged on its own merits, and it can be reckoned as the sharpest break yet with the national consensus over American foreign policy after World War II. This is not only a matter of Sen. Obama's own sensibility; the break with the consensus over American exceptionalism and America's claims and burdens abroad is the choice of the activists and elites of the Democratic Party who propelled Mr. Obama's rise.

Though the staging in Denver was the obligatory attempt to present the Obama Democrats as men and women of the political center, the Illinois senator and his devotees are disaffected with American power. In their view, we can make our way in the world without the encumbrance of "hard" power. We would offer other nations apologies for the way we carried ourselves in the aftermath of 9/11, and the foreign world would be glad for a reprieve from the time of American certitude.

The starkness of the choice now before the country is fully understood when compared to that other allegedly seminal election of 1960. But the legend of Camelot and of the New Frontier exaggerates the differences between Richard Nixon and John Kennedy. A bare difference of four years separated the two men (Nixon had been born in 1913, Kennedy in 1917). Both men had seen service in the Navy in World War II. Both were avowed Cold Warriors. After all, Kennedy had campaigned on the missile gap -- in other words the challenger had promised a tougher stance against the Soviet Union. (Never mind the irony: There was a missile gap; the U.S. had 2,000 missiles, the Soviet Union a mere 67.)

The national consensus on America's role abroad, and on the great threats facing it, was firmly implanted. No great cultural gaps had opened in it, arugula was not on the menu, and the elites partook of the dominant culture of the land; the universities were then at one with the dominant national ethos. The "disuniting of America" was years away. American liberalism was still unabashedly tethered to American nationalism.

We are at a great remove from that time and place. Globalization worked its way through the land, postmodernism took hold of the country's intellectual life. The belief in America's "differentness" began to give way, and American liberalism set itself free from the call of nationalism. American identity itself began to mutate.

The celebrated political scientist Samuel Huntington, in "Who Are We?," a controversial book that took up this delicate question of American identity, put forth three big conceptions of America: national, imperial and cosmopolitan. In the first, America remains America. In the second, America remakes the world. In the third, the world remakes America. Back and forth, America oscillated between the nationalist and imperial callings. The standoff between these two ideas now yields to the strength and the claims of cosmopolitanism. It is out of this new conception of America that the Obama phenomenon emerges.

Here's a definition of cosmopolitanism from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

The word ‘cosmopolitan’, which derives from the Greek word kosmopolitês (‘citizen of the world’), has been used to describe a wide variety of important views in moral and socio-political philosophy. The nebulous core shared by all cosmopolitan views is the idea that all human beings, regardless of their political affiliation, do (or at least can) belong to a single community, and that this community should be cultivated. Different versions of cosmopolitanism envision this community in different ways, some focusing on political institutions, others on moral norms or relationships, and still others focusing on shared markets or forms of cultural expression. The philosophical interest in cosmopolitanism lies in its challenge to commonly recognized attachments to fellow-citizens, the local state, parochially shared cultures, and the like.

For more on this concept's relevance to contemporary politics, see Kwame Anthony Appiah's book Cosmopolitanism:

Leon Aron: Today, Georgia--Tomorrow, Ukraine

From today's Wall Street Journal:

Still, there is no better place to cause a political crisis in Ukraine and force a change in the country's leadership, already locked in a bitter internecine struggle, than the Crimean peninsula. It was wrestled by Catherine the Great from the Ottoman Turks at the end of the 18th century. Less than a quarter of the Crimeans are ethnic Ukrainians, while Russians make up over half the inhabitants (the pro-Ukrainian Crimean Tatars, one-fifth).

Ever since the 1997 Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation between Russia and Ukraine, signed by President Boris Yeltsin and Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma, a solid majority of the Russian parliament has opposed the recognition of the Crimea as Ukrainian territory. Russian nationalists have been especially adamant about the city of Sevastopol, the base for Russia's Black Sea fleet and the site of some of the most spectacular feats of Russian military valor and sacrifice in World War II and the Crimean War of 1854-55.

Nationalist politicians, including Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov, have repeatedly traveled to Crimea to show the flag and support the Russian irredentists -- many of them retired Russian military officers who periodically mount raucous demonstrations. In 2006, their protests forced the cancellation of the joint Ukraine-NATO Sea Breeze military exercises. Sevastopol was and should again be a Russian city," Mr. Luzhkov declared this past May, and the Moscow City Hall has appropriated $34 million for "the support of compatriots abroad" over the next three years. On Sept. 5, Ukraine's Foreign Minister Vladimir Ogryzko accused the Russian consulate in the Crimean capital of Simferopol of distributing Russian passports to the inhabitants of the peninsula.

With almost three-quarters of Sevastopol's 340,000 residents ethnically Russian, and 14,000 Russian Navy personnel already "on the inside" (they've been known to don civilian clothes and participate in demonstrations by Russian Crimean irredentists), an early morning operation in which the Ukrainian mayor and officials are deposed and arrested and the Russian flag hoisted over the city should not be especially hard to accomplish. Once established, Russian sovereignty over Sevastopol would be impossible to reverse without a large-scale war, which Ukraine will be most reluctant to initiate and its Western supporters would strongly discourage.

A potentially bolder (and likely bloodier) scenario might involve a provocation by the Moscow-funded, and perhaps armed, Russian nationalists (or the Russian special forces, spetznaz, posing as irredentists). They could declare Russian sovereignty over a smaller city (Alushta, Evpatoria, Anapa) or a stretch of inland territory. In response, Ukrainian armed forces based in the Crimea outside Sevastopol would likely counterattack. The ensuing bloodshed would provide Moscow with the interventionist excuse of protecting its compatriots -- this time, unlike in South Ossetia, ethnic Russians.

Whatever the operational specifics, the Russian political barometer seems to augur storms ahead.

Lipstick on a Pig

Maybe Barack Obama was talking about Republican press secretary Torie Clark's book Lipstick on a Pig: Winning In the No-Spin Era by Someone Who Knows the Game? Clarke's first sentence, excerpted on the Amazon website, seems to have a reverberation with John McCain:"If you could only know one thing about Charles Keating-the man who came to personify the savings-and-loan crisis of the late eighties-the thing to know is that he never, not once that I ever saw, carried his own briefcase..."

From Booklist: Clarke is a former communications director with the Pentagon in the early years of the Bush administration and a former advisor to Senator John McCain. From her years of experience, she offers broad principles on effective communication--most notably, that honesty is better than spin--and illustrates her advice with stories of how the powerful have suffered for their hubris. She begins each chapter with sound recommendations (e.g., admit to errors as soon as possible) and then offers a behind-the-scenes look at several instances where the powerful have either handled news events well or bungled them, from the decision to invade Iraq to the savings-and-loan scandal. The advice is useful for businesspeople and public figures, but readers interested in the intersection of public relations and public policy will also enjoy this book. Vanessa Bush.

Wonder why so far no one seems to have made the connection?

What's Happening In Afghanistan?

You can find out at The Afghanistan Analyst, put together by Christian Bleuer, a graduate student in Australia. Here's his mission statement:

The goal of The Afghanistan Analyst is to provide an online research resource for scholars, students, journalists, policy-makers, NGO/humanitarian workers, and others who want to better understand Afghanistan.

This website is, by our own admission, biased towards the study of conflict and development. Subjects such as linguistics, art, ethnomusicology, ancient history, etc... will be poorly served by this website. Current events, recent history, war, ethnicity, development, government, etc... will be the focus.

The Afghanistan Analyst first appeared online in December 2006. The author of this website is Christian Bleuer, a PhD student at The Australian National University's Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies, The Middle East and Central Asia. There is no organizational affiliation for this website.

Send your suggestions for improving this website to: contact at afghanistan-analyst.org

McClatchy Newspapers Raises McCain's MIA Problem

The Huffington Post highlighted this story of an embarrassing confrontation with MIA activists outside McCain's office:

Back in Washington, families of POW-MIAs said they have seen McCain's wrath repeatedly. Some families charged that McCain hadn't been aggressive enough about pursuing their lost relatives and has been reluctant to release relevant documents. McCain himself was a prisoner of war for five-and-a-half years during the Vietnam War.

In 1992, McCain sparred with Dolores Alfond, the chairwoman of the National Alliance of Families for the Return of America's Missing Servicemen and Women, at a Senate hearing. McCain's prosecutor-like questioning of Alfond — available on YouTube — left her in tears.

Four years later, at her group's Washington conference, about 25 members went to a Senate office building, hoping to meet with McCain. As they stood in the hall, McCain and an aide walked by.

Six people present have written statements describing what they saw. According to the accounts, McCain waved his hand to shoo away Jeannette Jenkins, whose cousin was last seen in South Vietnam in 1970, causing her to hit a wall.

As McCain continued walking, Jane Duke Gaylor, the mother of another missing serviceman, approached the senator. Gaylor, in a wheelchair equipped with portable oxygen, stretched her arms toward McCain.

"McCain stopped, glared at her, raised his left arm ready to strike her, composed himself and pushed the wheelchair away from him," according to Eleanor Apodaca, the sister of an Air Force captain missing since 1967.

McCain's staff wouldn't respond to requests for comment about specific incidents.

Here's the testimony mentioned in the article:

Arianna Huffington on Sarah Palin

From the Huffington Post:

Her critics like to say that Palin hasn't accomplished anything. I disagree: in the space of ten days she's succeeded in distracting the entire country from the horrific Bush record -- and McCain's complicity in it. My friends, that's accomplishment we can believe in.

Just look at the problem John McCain faced. George Bush has a disastrous record, and the country knows it. John McCain -- the current one, not the one who vanished eight years ago -- has no major disagreements with George Bush (and I'm sorry, wanting to fire Donald Rumsfeld a bit sooner doesn't qualify) and wants to continue his incredibly unpopular policies for another four years. The solution? Enter Sarah Palin, a Trojan Moose carrying four more years of disaster.

And the plan has worked beautifully. Just look at what's being discussed just 57 days before the election. Is it the highest unemployment rate in five years? The bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? The suicide bombing yesterday in Iraq that killed six people and wounded 54 -- in the same market where last month a bomb killed 28 people and wounded 72? That the political reconciliation that was supposedly the point of "the surge" is nowhere near happening? That Iraq's Shiite government is now rounding up the American-backed Sunni leaders of the Awakening? That the reason 8,000 soldiers may be leaving Iraq soon is so more can be deployed to Afghanistan where the Taliban is steadily retaking the country?

No. We're talking about whether Sarah Palin was or was not a good mayor, whether she was or was not a good mother, whether her skirts are too short and her zingers too sarcastic.

Contrary to what we're hearing 24/7 in the media, the next few weeks are not a test of Sarah Palin. The next few weeks are a test of Barack Obama.

He needs to dramatically redirect this election back to a discussion over the issues that really matter -- the issues that will impact the future of this country. A presidential campaign is a battle and this is the time for Obama to show some commander-in-chief skills. I'm not talking about calling Palin out for lying about his record and demeaning community organizing. I'm talking about grabbing the political debate by the throat. The country is already angry about what's happened over the last seven-plus years -- he shouldn't be afraid to give voice to that anger. Obama has spent years adopting a non-threatening persona; but he can't let his fear that appearing like an "angry Black man" (a stereotype not-too-subtly fueled by Fox News) will turn off swing voters keep him from channeling the disgust and outrage felt by so many voters --swing and otherwise.

McCain's team, in an effort to distract, is going to keep doing what they're doing -- diverting voters and the media with a tantalizing combination of personal trivia and small lies. It doesn't matter if they're caught in them -- in fact, all the better. Because they know there is no way in hell they can win if this election is about the big truth of the Bush years.

McCain's real running mate is George Bush and the failed policies of the Republican Party. Even if they are dressed up in a skirt, lipstick, and Tina Fey glasses.

Portraits or Self-Portraits?

Thanks to Ann Althouse for pointing out Simon Abraham's essay explaining that portraits of the rich and famous are also self-portraits of the artist.

Carl Holzman at Katie Gingrass Gallery

A plug for a friend's exhibition of floral paintings at a Milwaukee art gallery: The artist's statement:

My recent series of paintings was inspired by the arresting effects created by the macro lens in close-up photography, and my desire to translate these effects into the medium of oil painting. Under certain conditions of light and aperture setting, the macro lens isolates the subject from its surroundings, creating a vivid, highly textured subject dissolving into a radiantly blurred, prismatic background. Known among photographers as bokeh, the diffused colors of the background and edges often confer a soft, mesmerizing quality to the entire image, one not visible to the naked eye. Also, the rapid fall-off in focus creates a dramatic, often mysterious sense of depth within the image frame. Using my own macro photographs of flowers – from the lowly marigold to the exotic orchid – I have tried to capture in paint this beautiful and transforming interplay between highly resolved and refracted image elements.

Since last April, my macro lens and I have spent at least three days a week, in the early morning hours, photographing flowers and other botanical subjects. This journey has taken us to the glorious Chicago Botanic Gardens in Highland Park, the hidden jewel of the Fernwood Botanic Gardens in Michigan, the five acres of greenhouses at Hauserman Orchids in Villa Park, the Morton Arboretum, the Indian Dunes, and the gardens of friends who live in Harbert and Lakeside, Michigan. Spending so much time outdoors in the heart of nature has been an extraordinary revelation to me. I hope that some of the beauty I have experienced is communicated in my paintings.

Apart from the emotional allure of the subject matter, this project poses a number of technical challenges. I employ several techniques – including underpainting, glazing, scumbling, layering and blurring – in an effort to solve them and, with luck, to communicate the powerfully affecting bokeh quality in my paintings.

Moscow Times: Cheney Trip a Failure

Something I haven't seen in US newspapers--The Moscow Times reports Vice President Dick Cheney's trip to Azerbaijan failed:

U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney has failed to win Azerbaijan's support for the construction of a new gas pipeline from the Caspian that would bypass Russia.

Azeri President Ilham Aliyev indicated to Cheney during talks in Baku on Wednesday that he did not want to anger Russia in the wake of its invasion of neighboring Georgia, Kommersant reported, citing an official in Aliyev's administration. Cheney was so disappointed that he did not attend an official dinner in his honor, the report said.

What the Russian-Georgian War Means

Rein Mullerson explains why the Chinese may be the winners, on OpenDemocracy.net:

By formally recognising the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Russia acted as rashly as those western states which recognised Kosovo; both sides thus further opened the Pandora's box of territorial disputes. The Kremlin's decision involved two big mistakes. First, Moscow cannot now expect support from many of the states which otherwise would have understood or even welcomed Russia's grandstanding against Nato. China, India and a host of other states are extremely nervous about any encouragement their "own" minorities may have for independence claims.

In this light, vacuous claims by some politicians that the recognition of new states - Kosovo, Abkhazia and South Ossetia for example - is both completely different in each case and doesn't create precedents are wrong in the Caucasus and the Balkans alike. Differences, or parallels for that matter, are in the eye of the beholder. The tepid support given to Russia at the summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) in Bishkek only proves that, if any proof was needed.

Second, having recognised these entities the Kremlin has played its trump- cards. It would have been in Russia's interest to keep these cards close, threaten to use them, but never actually throw them on the table. This may sound rather Machiavellian but it is both a better and a more honest assessment of the situation than believing in the crocodile-tears the Kremlin is shedding over the plight of the Ossetians or Abkhazians or Washington over the fate of the Georgians or Ukrainians.

What is needed now is that all the sides have to tone down the rhetoric. After that, small practical steps may be beneficial. Russia's actions have to be reciprocated by the west. It is clear that Nato cannot immediately revert over its policy of enlargement to Georgia and Ukraine. However, putting brakes on this process instead of precipitating it would be wise. Russia understands that it doesn't need these breakaway republics; what it needs is a friendly Georgia. However, such a Georgia can evolve only if Washington ceases to use this country for the purpose of encirclement and containment of Russia.

In facing global challenges Russia - even one that pursues her own interests, which sometimes inevitably differ from western preferences - is a much more important partner for the west than Georgia. This is especially true if the global "war on terror" were indeed one of the most crucial issues. Georgia, or Ukraine for that matter, are more important partners than Russia only if Russia is seen as an enemy (or at least a potential one) and not as a partner (at least a potential one).

This in no way means that the west has to sacrifice these or other small, states for the sake of the partnership with Russia. These nations would only benefit from cooperative relationships between Russia and western democracies as well as from their own cooperation with both Russia and the west. To force or encourage smaller Russian neighbours to take sides - you are either with us or against us - is a policy that is highly detrimental for such states. Moreover, it doesn't matter whether the culprit is Russia (which too actively supports so-called pro-Russian politicians) or the west (which sponsors pro-western leaders). In either case, the people suffer even if their leaders may flourish.

As one of the immediate measures, Georgia should be persuaded to sign "non-use-of-force" agreements with its breakaway territories. Later, other cooperative steps may be possible. If Georgia is ever to regain its these territories it would be only through establishing lasting friendly relations with Russia. Neither will not happen soon. Therefore, patience is needed. Here, once again, more may be learned from the Chinese than from the Georgians, Russians or Americans.

Obama-Palin v. McCain-Biden

Now that the conventions are over it seems that each party has one charismatic, attractive, articulate, youthful minority candidate--Obama for the Democrats, Palin for the Republicans--who deviates from the party line--Obama stresses reponsibility, Palin runs a welfare-state and is anything but a stay-at-home Mom. Likewise, each party has an old Washington hand--Biden for the Democrats, McCain for the Republicans--pretending to run as a reformer.

To win, Obama's going to have to run a stronger campaign, really hold John McCain responsible for all the bad news coming from the Bush administration. He's also going to have to attack John McCain from the right, as weak on national security, pursuing dangerous and irresponsible policies like "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran" and encouraging Georgia to get into a war with Russia. Finally, he may have to do some of his own "Swift-boating"--allying his campaign with Vietnam veterans like John LeBoutillier unhappy with McCain's record on the MIA issue as well as conservatives like George Will who felt McCain-Feingold's campaign finance reform bill was un-American and unconstitutional. Will he break with party orthodoxy, and paint McCain as un-American and irresponsible, to win the White House? It's what he has to do, IMHO. The Daisy ad...

Likewise, while McCain's pick of Palin has rallied the Republican base (who threatened to stay home on Election Day, giving the White House to Obama), he has not reached out to actual Democrats. Will he pick up on Palin's pro-union rhetoric? Will he call for an end to outsourcing, contracting out, and the use of temporary employees? How about going after hedge fund managers, Wall Street, and mortgage lenders? He cited Teddy Roosevelt, but there has not been any "trust-busting" or economic populism from John McCain so far. He said he stands for reform, he's talked the talk, but so far he has not "walked the walk." As a Senator, he can pick a bill and filibuster it to make a point. If he doesn't force Congress to grind to a halt on a reform point of principle before Election Day, Obama can say that McCain is really just another Texan with an Arizona driver's license: All hat, and no cattle. In other words, he's going to have to do something rather than say something. Like "I paid for this microphone..."

Actions, not words, will determine the outcome of this election. Obama has to prove he loves his country more than John McCain. John McCain has to prove he can not only talk about being a different kind of Republican, but actually do it.

And then there's the wild card of events--Bush bombing Iran, changing tides in Iraq and Afghanistan, and "the economy, stupid."

It looks like it might be an interesting couple of months...

Barbara Amiel: Sarah Palin May Be America's Margaret Thatcher

Meanwhile, in today's Wall Street Journal, Mrs. Conrad Black, points out similarities between the legendary British Prime Minister and John McCain's running-mate:

Sarah Palin has put the flim-flam nature of America feminism sharply into focus, revealing the not-so-secret hypocrisy of its code and, whatever her future, this alone is an accomplishment. As she emerged into the nation's consciousness, a shudder went through the feminist left—a political movement not restricted to females. She is a mother refusing to stay at home (good) who had made a success out in the workplace (excellent) whose marriage nevertheless is a rip-roaring success and whose views are unspeakable—those of a red-blooded, right-wing principled pragmatist.

The metaphorical hair stood up on the back of every licensed member of the feminist movement who could immediately see she was a monster out of a nightmare landscape by Hieronymus Bosch. Pro-life. Pro-oil exploration in Alaska, home of the nation's polar bears for heaven's sake. Smaller government. Lower taxes. And that family of hers: Next to the Clintons with their dysfunctional marriage, her fertility and sexually robust life could only emphasize the shriveled nature of the one-child family of the former Queen Bee of political female accomplishment.

Mrs. Palin's emergence caused a spasm in American feminism. Caste and class have always been ammunition in the very Eastern seaboard women's movement, and now they were (so to speak) loading for bear. Sally Quinn felt a mother of five had no business being vice president. Andrea Mitchell remarked that "only the uneducated" would vote for Mrs. Palin. "Choose a woman but this woman?" wrote Baltimore Sun columnist Susan Reimer, accusing Sen. McCain of using a Down's syndrome child as qualification for the VP spot.

The hypocrisy was breathtaking. Only nanoseconds before the choice of Mrs. Palin as VP put her a geriatric heartbeat away from the presidency, a woman's right to have a career and children was a shibboleth of feminism. One always knew that women with views that opposed those of official feminism were to be treated as nonwomen. To see it now out in the open was the real shocker.

The fact that this mom had been governor of a state was dismissed because it was a "small state," as was the city of which she had been mayor. Her acceptance speech, which knowledgeable left-wing critics feared would be effective, was dismissed before being delivered. She would be reading from a teleprompter. The speech would be good, no doubt, but written for her.

Had she been a man with similar political views, the left's opposition would have been strong but less personally vicious: It would have focused neither on a daughter's pregnancy, nor on the candidate's inability to be a good parent if the job was landed. In its panic, the left was indicating that to be a female running for office these days is no hindrance but an advantage, and admitting that there is indeed a difference between mothers and fathers that cannot necessarily be resolved by having daddy doing the diaper run.

All the shrapnel has so far been counterproductive. The mudslinging tabloid journalism—is Mrs. Palin the mother or grandmother of her Down's baby?—only raised her profile to a point where viewers who would never dream of watching a Republican vice-presidential acceptance speech tuned in.

Watching the frenzied reaction was déjà vu from my years as a political columnist in Margaret Thatcher's Britain. Modern history's titan of female political life suffered a similar hatred, fuelled to a large extent by her gender. Mrs. Thatcher overcame it magnificently, but in the end, the fact was that she was female and not one of "them"—a member of the old boys' club of the Tory establishment—played a significant role in bringing her down.

Eugene Robinson: Cross-Dressing Republicans Play Democrats on TV

In today's Washington Post, columnist Eugene Robinson says that Palin's speech marks a role-reversal for America's political parties:

I guess I didn't drink enough Kool-Aid before Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's convention speech, which was received inside the Xcel Energy Center here as if Ronald Reagan had returned from the great beyond. I heard criticism of the Democratic ticket, demonization of the media, praise of John McCain's war record, characterization of Washington as an evil place, promises of lower taxes and a firm but nonspecific pledge to enact thoroughgoing reform.

None of that is exactly groundbreaking at a Republican convention. But the point wasn't the speech. It was the speaker. Palin told the nation very little about what she stands for or even what she has accomplished. Instead, her aim was to show the nation who she is.

The reason for framing her introduction to the American people this way is obvious. Palin, unlike most Americans, would like to see abortion banned even in cases of rape or incest. Her record as a mayor and a governor is that of a talented rising star, but it's a politician's record, full of reversals and compromises. And nothing we know about her suggests that a rhetorical stroll through the minefields of foreign policy would have been a good idea.

Instead, she offered one message: Here's who I am. Career woman, mother (specifically, lipstick-wearing hockey mom), loving wife, avid hunter, caring daughter, fierce fighter, product of her own spunk and determination. After the speech, Republican strategists were rapturous over her potential appeal to female voters who perform similar feats of multitasking every day without complaint or recognition. The hope was not that these women would agree with Palin's views but that they would see their lives reflected in hers.

Until Palin's star turn, this convention had been primarily about another biography -- McCain's. Again and again, speakers have reminded us of his military service and the torture he endured as a prisoner of war. Perhaps because McCain is still not fully in line with the Republican Party's activist base on a number of issues, praise of his record in Washington has pretty much been confined to national security issues and his newly appreciated status as a "maverick."

Delegates to this convention, by the way, seem to have convinced themselves that they are all mavericks. Whatever happened to the old truism about how Democrats fall in love while Republicans fall in line? And if everyone in the party becomes a maverick, then aren't they all just conforming to a new "maverick" norm? But I digress.

He didn't even mention that Alaska's "first dude" Mr. Sarah Palin was introduced as a proud member of the United Steelworkers of America--Union, Yes!

Ann Coulter on Sarah Palin

From AnnCoulter.com:

Within the first few hours after Palin's name was announced, McCain raised $4 million in campaign donations online, reaching $10 million within the next two days. Which shortlist vice presidential pick could have beaten that?

The media hysterically denounced Palin as "inexperienced." But then people started to notice that she has more executive experience than B. Hussein Obama -- the guy at the top of the Democrats' ticket.

They tried to create a "Troopergate" for Palin, indignantly demanding to know why she wanted to get her ex-brother-in-law removed as a state trooper. Again, public corruption is not a good issue for someone like Obama, Chicago pol and noted friend of Syrian National/convicted felon Antonin Rezko.

For the cherry on top, then we found out Palin's ex-brother-in-law had Tasered his own 10-year-old stepson. Defend that, Democrats.

The bien-pensant criticized Palin, saying it's irresponsible for a woman with five children to run for vice president. Liberals' new talking point: Sarah Palin: Only five abortions away from the presidency.

They claimed her newborn wasn't her child, but the child of her 17-year-old daughter. That turned out to be a lie.

Then they attacked her daughter, who actually is pregnant now, for being unmarried. When liberals start acting like they're opposed to pre-marital sex and mothers having careers, you know McCain's vice presidential choice has knocked them back on their heels.

But at least liberal reporters had finally found someone their own size to pick on: a 17-year-old girl.

Speaking of Democrats with newborn children, the media weren't particularly concerned about John Edwards running for president despite his having a mistress with a newborn child.

While the difficult circumstances of Palin's pregnant daughter are being covered like a terrorist attack on the nation, with leering accounts of the 18-year-old father, the media remain resolutely uninterested in the parentage of Edwards' mistress's love child. Except, that is, the hardworking reporters at the National Enquirer, who say Edwards is the father.

As this goes to press, the latest media-invented scandal about Palin is that McCain didn't know her well before choosing her as his running mate. He knew her well enough, though admittedly, not as well as Obama knows William Ayers.

My Thoughts on the Russian-Georgian Crisis

In response to a friend's emailed article on the Russian-Georgian Crisis, I sent him some thoughts, including this one:

IMHO, Russia holds an ace (maybe even a Joker) in this poker game, through control of supply lines to Afghanistan from the north. I haven't yet heard public threats from anyone to cut them off--but think NATO must be aware that the loss of Afghanistan would put the western alliance in the same position as the Warsaw Pact, especially at a time of economic crisis and collapse of banks, etc. That, more than oil and gas pipelines, is a geopolitical reality that must be somewhere in people's minds. Ås far as doing Russia's "dirty work," Russia survived a Taliban-led Afghanistan before, and probably could survive it again. However, the prestige of the West would suffer major damage.

I really don't think ordinary citizens realize the extent to which NATO victories in Afghanistan depended--and still rely--upon Russian support...

Reporters Without Borders Protests Arrests at Republican Convention

This was in my inbox today:

UNITED STATES
CALL FOR WITHDRAWAL OF CHARGES AGAINST THREE JOURNALISTS MANHANDLED AND ARRESTED OUTSIDE REPUBLICAN PARTY CONVENTION

Reporters Without Borders is outraged by the way Amy Goodman, the host of the nationally-syndicated radio and TV programme Democracy Now!, and two of her producers, Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar, were manhandled and arrested by police while covering demonstrations yesterday outside the Republican Party convention in St. Paul, Minnesota.

The press freedom organisation calls for an investigation into the circumstances of their arrest and the immediate withdrawal of the charges brought against them. Although quickly released, Goodman was charged with obstructing a legal process and interfering with a police officer, while her two producers were charged with "felony riot."

"The violence used by the police when arresting these three journalists, who identified themselves as such, was an unacceptable abuse of authority, a violence of the First Amendment and a clear demonstration of a desire to intimidate them and their news organisation," Reporters Without Borders said.

"Democracy Now! has done a lot of very critical reporting about the war in Iraq and it is no coincidence that three of its representatives were treated like this," the press freedom organisation added. "The confirmation of the charges against them compounds the original injustice with another one. The police should be investigating their own ranks."

The three journalists were arrested at about 5 p.m. during anti-war demonstrations being staged by veterans and relatives of soldiers killed in Iraq near the convention centre where the Republican Party is due to confirm Sen. John McCain as its candidate for November's presidential election.

Kouddous and Salazar were the first to be arrested by baton-wielding police. Kouddous was slammed against a wall and then pinned to the ground. Salazar was slammed to the ground. Kouddous sustained injuries to the chest and back. Salazar sustained injuries to her face.

Goodman was arrested when she asked the police why they had arrested her colleagues. Although she identified herself as a journalist, her hands were handcuffed behind her back and then she was led away, as can be seen in a video sequence shot by a bystander.

An Associated Press photographer, Matt Rourke, was also arrested at the same time as several hundred demonstrators.
A committed journalist who is very critical of the Republican government and especially the war in Iraq, Goodman launched her Democracy Now! in 1996. Produced in New York by a team of independent journalists, it is syndicated to more than 700 radio and TV stations in the United States and abroad.

Robert Sacheli on the Brideshead Revisited Remake

From Dandyism.net:

The screenplay finds its focus in the sins committed in the guise of familial love, and it’s the players who portray the older generation who come to dominate the movie. Emma Thompson, wearing her steel-gray hair as if it were a royal tiara, suggests a note of desperation beneath Lady Marchmain’s armor of piety and manipulativeness. Michael Gambon taps into the veiled Byronic swagger that Waugh ascribes to Lord Marchmain’s appetites and anger. Instead of Gielgud’s delightful old loon, Patrick Malahide brings out the malevolence in Ned Ryder’s obliviousness, underscoring the emotional lure of the Marchmain clan for poor Charles.

Will some viewers be disappointed that this is not their cherished vision of “Brideshead”? Certainly. But then again, the strength of that that personal vision certainly ought to endure assaults more egregious than a commercial film.

As for me, I finally made it to Brideshead. My pilgrimage to Castle Howard took place more than a decade after I’d first seen the series, and though it was my first visit it had a the feeling of a return. The rooms, the art and the grounds — particularly the fountain — were suitably impressive when liberated from the proportions of a television screen. But part of me was strangely let down. I expected a gift shop stocked with Fair Isle pullovers and antique stud boxes. I found teddy-bear key chains, refrigerator magnets and frisbees. In the end, it didn’t matter. I still had my memories of “Brideshead,” distilled as they were through Evelyn Waugh and Charles Ryder and Jeremy Irons.

But now I had my own remembrance of the place to add to them. I also had something more, a powerful talisman of memory that neither the story’s author nor his characters could have imagined.

I had the refrigerator magnet.

The New Invisible College: Science for Development

Caroline Wagner, a cousin of someone I know, has published a new book about the importance of science policy in development, The New Invisible College: Science for Development. The forward is by Francis Fukuyama, last seen giving a eulogy for my high school friend Kevin E. Lewis at the RAND Corporation. I haven't read it yet, but from the description, it looks to be influential in policy circles. Here's the blurb:

The twentieth century was the era of "big science." Driven by strategic rivalries and fierce economic competition, wealthy governments invested heavily in national science establishments. Direct funding for institutions like the National Science Foundation and high-visibility projects, such as the race to the moon, fueled innovation, growth, and national prestige. But the big science model left poorer countries out in the cold.

Today the organization of science is undergoing a fundamental transformation. In The New Invisible College, Caroline Wagner combines quantitative data and extensive interviews to map the emergence of global science networks and trace the dynamics driving their growth. She argues that the shift from big science to global networks creates unprecedented opportunities for developing countries to tap science's potential. Rather than squander resources in vain efforts to mimic the scientific establishments of the twentieth century, developing country governments can leverage networks by creating incentives for top-notch scientists to focus on research that addresses their concerns and by finding ways to tie knowledge to local problem solving. The New Invisible College offers both a guidebook and a playbook for policymakers confronting these tasks.

Caroline S. Wagner is lead research scientist at the Center for International Science and Technology Policy, George Washington University, and senior policy analyst at SRI International. She previously worked at the RAND Corporation and as a staff member for the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. A fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, she has served as a member of the United Nations Millennium Task Force on Science, Technology, and Innovation and on the Advisory Board of Canada's Research on Knowledge Systems Program.

Sample chapter here.