Bernard Henri-Levy Goes to Washington

His new book, Left in Dark Times: A Stand Against the New Barbarism is in American bookstores, and BHL is on a book tour of the USA. Last night, I saw him at the Johns Hopkins Nitze School of International Affairs, on a panel entitled "Existential Threat or Historical Footnote? What Our Obession with Islam is Costing Us." Perhaps to dull Levy's message (why not give him a solo gig?), BHL had been plonked onto a panel of experts who pooh-poohed his theme of an existential threat to freedom from Islamist fundamentalist extremism allied with anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, and Red-Brown neo-fascism. The panelists were: Ohio State University's Woody Hayes Professor John Mueller (BHL declined to sit next to him), who sounded like a spokesman for the Council on Islamic American Relations, who made fun of both existentialism and transcendentalism, while arguing that 9/11 was Overblown; Hopkins' Bernard L. Schwartz Professor Francis Fukuyama, a friend of BHL, who extended the invitation, yet apparently couldn't take Islamism seriously himself; and Adam Garfinkle, Colin Powell's former speechwriter--now editor of The American Interest magazine--whose explanation of the origins of Arab anti-semitism were immediately contradicted, and whose expertise was thus expertly undermined, by BHL. With so many contradictory voices on the program, no wonder that BHL didn't talk about Islamism, except by indirection, concentrating on the bankruptcy of the Left in the face of Islamism, the newest totalitarian threat, and the dangers of anti-Semitism. So uninterested was the audience in BHL's philosophy, with the exception of one self-identified Pashtun from Pakistan and one self-identifed American grandson of a Holocaust survivor, they primarily directed their questions to John Mueller and Francis Fukuyama--an audience beyond denial, into a "I don't want to know" willfull blindness towards what is going on in the world...

BHL made the point, in reference to a scenario sketched out by Fukuyama, that in any conflict between a Muslim woman confronting her family over a love match with a man of whom her family may disapprove, it is the obligation of progressives and the West to side with the individual over the community. This romantic notion, of love conquering all, is anathema to traditional Islamist thought--and takes a strong stand for individual freedom. When BHL made the statement, it was greeted by silence--punctuated by the sound of one person clapping. I turned around and saw a middle-aged Asian woman applauding--surrounded by dumb, silent, and disapproving students and Washingtonians.

I thought to myself: BHL may have a hard sell with this one...

So, I'm going to request an interview with BHL from his Random House publicist (his editor was there, and I did shake BHL's hand, since practically no one else was around him after the talk). I hope I'll have a chance to ask him some questions about his book while he's in the nation's capital. In the meantime, I did at least get a few photos with my cell phone of the French nouvelle philosophe. You can buy a copy of the book from Amazon.com here: NY Sun review here. You can read an excerpt here. On Kojo Nnamdi's WAMU-FM radio show, here.

Tina Fey as Sarah Palin

Russia's New National History Standards

Leon Aron's New Republic article reminded this reader of Lynne Cheney's failed attempt to standardize a pro-American History curriculum during the her chairmanship of the National Endowment for the Humanities. Luckily, it didn't work here--although Cheney-ism under Putin, like Ford-ism under Stalin, seems to have found its truest adherents in the highest levels of the Kremlin:

In fact, the clearest expression of the Kremlin's goodwill toward the textbook came two months earlier, with an invitation to the conference participants to visit President Putin at his residence in Novo-Ogaryovo, outside Moscow. In a long introduction to the discussion that ensued, Putin complained that there was "mishmash" (kasha) in the heads of teachers of history and social sciences, and that this dire situation in the teaching of Russian history needed to be corrected by the introduction of "common standards. " (Four days later, a new law, introduced in the Duma and passed with record speed in eleven days, authorized the ministry of education and science to determine which textbooks be "recommended" for school use and to determine which publishers would print them.) There followed some instructive exchanges:

"A conference participant: In 1990-1991 we disarmed ideologically. [We adopted] a very uncertain, abstract ideology of all-human values. . . . It is as if we were back in school, or even kindergarten. We were told [by the West]: you have rejected communism and are building democracy, and we will judge when and how you have done. . . . In exchange for our disarming ideologically we have received this abstract recipe: you become democrats and capitalists and we will control you.

Putin: Your remark about someone who assumes the posture of teacher and begins to lecture us is of course absolutely correct. But I would like to add that this, undoubtedly, is also an instrument of influencing our country. This is a tried and true trick. If someone from the outside is getting ready to grade us, this means that he arrogates the right to manage [us] and is keen to continue to do so.

Participant: In the past two decades, our youth have been subjected to a torrent of the most diverse information about our historical past. This information [contains] different conceptual approaches, interpretations, or value judgments, and even chronologies. In such circumstances, the teacher is likely to . . .

Putin (interrupting): Oh, they will write, all right. You see, many textbooks are written by those who are paid in foreign grants. And naturally they are dancing the polka ordered by those who pay them. Do you understand? And unfortunately [such textbooks] find their way to schools and colleges."

And later, concluding the session, Putin declared:

"As to some problematic pages in our history--yes, we've had them. But what state hasn't? And we've had fewer of such pages than some other [states]. And ours were not as horrible as those of some others. Yes, we have had some terrible pages: let us remember the events beginning in 1937, let us not forget about them. But other countries have had no less, and even more. In any case, we did not pour chemicals over thousands of kilometers or drop on a small country seven times more bombs than during the entire World War II, as it was in Vietnam, for instance. Nor did we have other black pages, such as Nazism, for instance. All sorts of things happen in the history of every state. And we cannot allow ourselves to be saddled with guilt--they'd better think of themselves."

Crisis Communications for Diplomats

The Daily Mail (UK) today has an account of a telephone conversation between British Foreign Secretary David Miliband and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov that may explain why diplomatic communication is often kept secret:

At one point Sergei Lavrov, the colourful Russian foreign minister, became so incensed that he reportedly barked: 'Who the f*** are you to lecture me?'

Mr Lavrov, who is seen as the fearsome face of Russia's new aggressive foreign policy, objected to what he believed was Mr Miliband's condescending tone.

He used full-strength industrial language to suggest to the Foreign Secretary that he knew little, if anything, of Russia's history - perhaps unaware that Mr Miliband's grandfather Samuel served in the Red Army and his father Ralph was a leading Marxist theoretician.

Such was the repeated use of the F-word that it was difficult to draft a readable note of the exchange, according to one insider who has seen the transcript.

A Whitehall source said: 'It was effing this and effing that.

'It was not what you would call diplomatic language. It was rather shocking.'

Mr Miliband was 'surprised' by the ferocity of the verbal attack and the nature of the language, an insider close to the Foreign Secretary added...

The Art Museum of Tunis

Thanks to a notice from a Facebook friend, I learned about this new museum--The Art Museum of Tunis:

Chers Amis des arts,

L’idée de créer un Musée d’art à Tunis est un projet ambitieux auquel je m’attaque et je reste conscient que je ne peux le réaliser sans la participation d’autres personnes. Il est évident que des énergies différentes doivent s’associer pour mettre au monde une telle institution.

Le but est de permettre aux visiteurs de la Tunisie d’admirer les créations des artistes de ce pays, de donner l’occasion aux étudiants de mettre des couleurs sur les noms dont ils entendent parler, de savoir à quoi ressemble un « Aly Ben Salem » en vrai. Car en l’absence de musée dédié à la peinture dans notre pays, comment les gens peuvent-ils avoir une éducation artistique ? Je ressens ce manque comme beaucoup d’autres et j’essaye d’y remédier.

C’est pourquoi j’ai besoin de votre contribution, n’hésitez pas à écrire vos idées et propositions, elles seront étudiées avec toute l’attention du monde.
Je suis curieux de savoir ce que le spectateur voudrait voir comme œuvre dans ce musée, alors envoyez moi les noms de vos artistes Tunisiens préférés et montrez ce group à vos connaissances pour que ce cercle s’agrandisse et que les amis des arts nous rejoignent.

L’objectif étant que Le Musée d’art de Tunis appartienne au public, il est naturel donc de faire participer tout le monde.

Je compte sur vous.

Amar Ben Belgacem
Président fondateur du musée d’art de Tunis

Dear friends,

Setting up an Art Museum in Tunis is an ambitious project that I am starting up, though I’m aware of the fact that I can’t do it without other people’s contribution. And to give birth to such an institution, it is obvious that we need to gather various forces/talents.

The aim is to allow visitors of Tunisia to admire creations of artists from this country, to give students the opportunity to associate colours with the artists they’ve heard about, to see what Aly Ben Salem’s artwork looks like in real life. How could people increase their knowledge of art without any museum featuring paintings of our country? As many, I feel this lack and want to make up for it.

That’s why I need your contribution: do not hesitate to submit your ideas and proposals, they will be examined with the best care you can imagine.
As I look forward to knowing what kind of work a visitor would like to see in this museum, please send me a list of your favourite Tunisian Artists and show this group to your acquaintances to make this circle grow and encourage many friends of art join the project.

As this Art Museum of Tunisia being is intended to belong to the public, it’s obvious that everybody should be encouraged to participate.

I rely on you.

Amar Ben Belgacem
President and Fondator of The Art Museum of Tunis.

Ann Coulter on George Bush

In today's column, Ann says the President is like Gary Cooper in High Noon:

George Bush is Gary Cooper in the classic western "High Noon." The sheriff is about to leave office when a marauding gang is coming to town. He could leave, but he waits to face the killers as all his friends and all the townspeople, who supported him during his years of keeping them safe, slowly abandon him. In the end, he walks alone to meet the killers, because someone has to.

That's Bush. Name one other person in Washington who would be willing to stand alone if he had to, because someone had to.

OK, there is one, but she's not in Washington yet. Appropriately, at the end of "High Noon," Cooper is surrounded by the last two highwaymen when, suddenly, his wife (Grace Kelly) appears out of nowhere and blows away one of the killers! The aging sheriff is saved by a beautiful, gun-toting woman.

Washington Post: Cindy McCain Broke Federal Law

Today's Washington Post runs a story alleging that Cindy McCain broke federal drug laws, reportedly committing fraud to feed her addiction:

Her charity, AVMT, kept a ready supply of antibiotics and over-the-counter pain medications needed to fulfill its medical mission. It also secured prescriptions for the narcotic painkillers Vicodin, Percocet and Tylenol 3 in quantities of 100 to 400 pills, the county report shows.

McCain started taking narcotics for herself, the report shows. To get them, she asked the charity's medical director, John Max Johnson, to make out prescriptions for the charity in the names of three AVMT employees.

The employees did not know their names were being used. And under DEA regulations, Johnson was supposed to use a form to notify federal officials that he was ordering the narcotics for the charity. It is illegal for an organization to use personal prescriptions to fill its drug needs.

How come the potentially future First Lady didn't do jail time? The Post explains:

The DEA questioned the charity's doctors, and McCain hired John Dowd, a powerhouse Washington lawyer, to represent AVMT. Dowd had defended John McCain in the Keating Five scandal, helping the senator win the mildest sanction of the five senators involved. Dowd declined to comment for this article.

Soon, the DEA began looking at Cindy McCain. Dowd informed Johnson, the physician, that "there's been further investigation and Cindy's got a drug problem," Johnson told county investigators.

The DEA pursued the matter for 11 months. Dowd kept tabs on the investigation from Washington, writing letters and making frequent phone calls to the agency, according to sources close to the investigation.

McCain's conduct left her facing federal charges of obtaining "a controlled substance by misrepresenting, fraud, forgery, deception or subterfuge." Experts say she could have faced a 20-year prison sentence.

Dowd negotiated a deal with the U.S. attorney's office allowing McCain, as a first-time offender, to avoid charges and enter a diversion program that required community service, drug treatment and reimbursement to the DEA for investigative costs.

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...