What Will Obama Do?

We don't have to guess. Obama and Biden have published their Blueprint For Change on the Web. It's a mixed bag. I don't like everything, but overall it seems thoughtful, although not as original or imaginative as Bill Clinton's program, Mandate for Change.. Still, it's not a bad start, and hopefully Obama is open to discussion--unlike Bush & Cheney.

For example, here's what Obama and Biden have to say about Russia:

A Comprehensive Strategy

Russia today is not the Soviet Union, and we are not returning to the Cold War. Retrofitting outdated 20th century thinking to address this new 21st century challenge will not advance American national interests. Instead, Obama and Biden will address the new challenges Russia poses by pursuing an integrated and vigorous strategy that encompasses the entire region. The core components of this strategy include:

• Supporting democratic partners and upholding principles of sovereignty throughout Europe and Eurasia while working proactively to gauge effectively the intentions of actors in the region, and address tensions between countries before they escalate into military confrontations.
• Strengthening the Transatlantic alliance, so that we deal with Russia with one, unified voice.
• Helping to decrease the dependence of our allies and partners in the region on Russian energy.
• Engaging directly with the Russian government on issues of mutual interest, such as countering nuclear proliferation, reducing our nuclear arsenals, expanding trade and investment opportunities, and fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban; and also reaching out directly to the Russian people to promote our common values.
• Keeping the door open to fuller integration into the global system for all states in the region, including Russia, that demonstrates a commitment to act as responsible, law-abiding members of the interna- tional community.

I like the part about joining with Russia to fight the Taliban--right now I think the Bush administration and the British are trying to negotiate a deal with the Taliban, so if Obama sticks to this point, it could mark a real change...

Wiktionary

Just found this:

Wiktionary (a portmanteau of wiki and dictionary) is a multilingual, Web-based project to create a free content dictionary, available in over 151 languages. Unlike standard dictionaries, it is written collaboratively by volunteers using wiki software, allowing articles to be changed by almost anyone with access to the Web site.

Like its sister project Wikipedia, Wiktionary is run by the Wikimedia Foundation. Because Wiktionary is not limited by print space considerations, most of Wiktionary's language editions provide definitions and translations of words from many languages, and some editions offer additional information typically found in thesauri and lexicons. Additionally, the English Wiktionary includes Wikisaurus, a category that serves as a thesaurus, including lists of slang words,[1] and the Simple English Wiktionary, compiled using the Basic English subset of the English language.

Don't Blame Greenspan...

(paintings by Erin Crowe)

Someone I know pointed out that when Alan Greenspan stepped down as Federal Reserve Chairman a couple of years back, he did so under heavy political fire from Wall Street, the mortgage industry, and Congress--because he had been raising interest rates to slow the economy. Ben Bernanke--with the approval of Congress, Wall Street, and the press--reversed that Greenspan policy, opening the spigot to easy money that kept the bubble growing until it burst. So despite the theatrics in Congress yesterday, Greenspan can't be blamed for the mess we're in right now.

Bush can be blamed. Paulson can be blamed, Bernanke can be blamed. Wall Street can be blamed. Even Congress can be blamed.

Much easier than taking responsibility is for all of the above to scapegoat Greenspan--who presided over a tremendous period of growth in the US economy during the Clinton administration and kept things from collapsing after 9/11. In his testimony yesterday, Greenspan admitted making mistakes. That's more than I've heard anyone else do. Personally, it seems to me his biggest mistake was resigning under pressure to lower interest rates. He should have stood fast and defended the independence of the Federal Reserve against political pressure from Congress and the White House. But I'm sure Alan Greenspan, an Ayn Randian and Libertarian at heart, could not believe that business leaders would corrupt the entire system with phony bond ratings to the point where, as Anna Schwartz told the Wall Street Journal, the problem is that no one believes anything anyone on Wall Street or the US Treasury says anymore.

Businesspeople have gone from being "wealth creators" to "wealth destroyers" in the popular imagination. And honestly, if they are "wealth destroyers" why shouldn't they be heavily taxed? Of course it is time to "soak the rich." After all, they've just hosed the rest of us, haven't they? Why should they get away with it, laughing all the way to the bank? As Bob Dole used to ask: Where's the outrage?

IMHO Barack Obama has not been aggressive enough against what President Roosevelt (Republican Teddy Roosevelt, for all you McCain supporters out there who claim he's another T.R.) called "the malefactors of great wealth" (possibly because many donated to his campaign). Yet the American people are mad, and they want someone to the pay the price. This collapse did not happen on Greenspan's watch, and it is disgraceful that the media is permitting him to be scapegoated when guilty parties--including Paulson, Bernanke, Bush, Dodd, Frank, and Schumer have been given a pass...

Product Review: The New Google G1 Phone

This afternoon someone I know and I went to the T-Mobile store in NW DC to take a look at the new Google G1 phone. There was only one working model in the shop, and the salesman took a while to get it going. He didn't have one himself (he had a Nokia) and didn't seem that enthusiastic about the "cool" features. The case looked flimsy and plastic, the slide-up keyboard looked just like a Sidekick to this novice. The GPS function didn't work--the salesman said it was because we were indoors, but according to today's Washington Post, the real reason is that T-Mobile's Washington, DC 3G network is still under Defense Department control. Even without the 3G feature, the look and feel of the G1 just made me want an iPhone more...but I'll have to wait, because as a former New Yorker who grew up in the era of Ma Bell's monopoly, I still cannot buy any product that says AT&T...

Since I couldn't really use the G1, I won't rate it--and I wouldn't buy it, either. I'll wait for Apple to open up the iPhone (no hacker, I).

UPDATE: A reader comments...

I have a G1 On loan from T-Mobile. I like it. The GPS works great. The
browser loads faster than the iPhone. And it's cheaper! Someone I Know has
an iPhone, and it's nice too. To undeerstand what it's all about, read this
article in Wired:

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/magazine/16-07/ff_android

Product Review: The New MacBook

Someone I know just gave me a new 13-inch Apple MacBook laptop for an early birthday present. I've been using it since last Saturday--the souped-up 2.4 GHz model with extra memory. I love it! I love the keyboard that lights up in the dark. I love the built-in camera and microphone for using Skype. I love the giant trackpad that's one big button. I love the one-piece metal body. I love the look and feel of it. I haven't had a Mac laptop since 2003, when I left my old black MacBook in Tashkent. Since then, I used a Fujitsu LifeBook. It was sort of blocky, clumsy and had a Microsoft operating system that just got slower and slower and slower and slower until I'd had enough. Even though the MacBook weighs 4.5 pounds instead of 3, it is so beautiful to look at and and fun to type on that I just can't stop playing with it. And it costs less than my MacBook did in 1999...

So, my advice is run out and buy one--today.

Rating: Five Stars ***** (Our top rating)

(Full disclosure, I am an Apple stockholder.)

Wired Magazine: Quit Blogging Now!

Listening to our daily BBC Radio 4 Best of Today podcast, we heard a panel discussion about an article by Paul Boutin in Wired Magazine that says Twitter, Flickr, and Facebook--plus an invasion by professional journalists--have made blogging obsolete:

Thinking about launching your own blog? Here's some friendly advice: Don't. And if you've already got one, pull the plug...

IMHO, not yet.

Sen. Sam Nunn: Let's Not Be Beastly to the Russians...

Yesterday, I attended a panel discussion entitled "ASSESSING U.S. POLICY TOWARD RUSSIA IN THE WAKE OF THE RUSSIA-GEORGIA CONFLICT" at Georgetown University's Center for Strategic and International Studies featuring Presidential debate host Bob Schieffer of CBS News and Texas Christian University. The room was packed. Schieffer had just moderated the Presidential debates, and was in fine form. The other panelists were Jim Hoagland of the Washington Post, Andrew Kuchins of CSIS, and former US ambassador to Russia Andrew Vershbow. They all made conciliatory noises towards Russia, saying that America should understand that Russia wants money and influence as well as respect as a great power. After Georgia, this sentiment needed to be taken into consideration. Not what one usually hears in Washington...

I couldn't understand what was going on until the last minute, when Schieffer called on former Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA), who was seated in the audience a few rows behind me. At first he demurred, but when Schieffer pressed him--like Julius Caesar--he offered a detailed speech calling for US cooperation with Russia on nuclear non-proliferation and other important issues. I couldn't determine if Nunn was now working as a lobbyist for Russia, or was only speaking on his own behalf. Nevertheless, it gave me the idea that the purpose of the exercise was to signal that any future Democratic administration under a President Obama would revisit the nature of the US-Russian relationship, given that the panelists echoed Nunn's sentiments and that Nunn is among the most "hawkish" Democrats still around Washington (excluding Joe Lieberman, booted by his party in Connecticut in favor of Ned Lamont).

More on the event at the CSIS website, including audio and video.

Scott Hutchison at Georgetown University

My drawing teacher, Scott Hutchison has a show at the Georgetown University art gallery--here's his video about it from YouTube:

Carl Holzman at the Maple Avenue Gallery

Coming to Maple Avenue Gallery in Evanston, Illinois--November 21st-December 19th--Carl Holzman's "Still Lifes 2008" (should it be "Still Lives"?)

Florida is clearly in play...

Someone I know sent me a copy of this email from Barack Obama to her mother:

I'm coming to Orlando tomorrow, Monday, October 20th.

I'll be holding a rally with Senator Hillary Clinton and talking to folks about what we can all do together to change this country.

See the details below and RSVP for the event:

http://fl.barackobama.com/OrlandoChange

Hope to see you there,

Barack

P.S. -- Here's the invitation for the event:

This Monday, October 20th, please join Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in Orlando, where Barack will talk about his vision for creating the kind of change we need.

Early Vote for Change Rally
with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton

Amway Arena North Staircase
600 W. Amelia Street
Orlando, FL 32801

Monday, October 20th
Gates Open: 3:00 p.m.
Program Begins: 6:00 p.m.

http://fl.barackobama.com/OrlandoChange

This event is free and open to the public. Tickets are not required; however, an RSVP is strongly encouraged. Space is available on a first-come, first-served basis.

For security reasons, do not bring bags or umbrellas. Please limit personal belongings. No signs or banners permitted.

Paid for by Obama for America

Here's a link to local media coverage of the event on Channel 13.

Return to Kibbutz Na'an: A Video Documentary

After 36 years, Pierro returns to his kibbutz with this filmmaker, to show him where he spent the gap year between high school and college...

James Grant: Wall Street Lied

James Grant was on 60 Minutes last night:
.

Simultaneously Grant published this critical op-ed in the Washington Post yesterday. Inquiring minds want to know. How come he wasn't on the 60 Minutes and in the Washington Post the week before the second House vote? Do you think Grant's point-of-view might have changed some minds in Congress, even with a "sweetener" Wooden Arrow Tax Exemption included?

When, in 2006, the roof began to fall in, Wall Street was in a quandary. It held outsize volumes of triple-A-rated mortgage-backed securities (MBSs). That they were not, in fact, triple-A, had become painfully obvious. Curious analysts consulted the financial statements of the top mortgage dealers, including Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley, for clarification.

Readers, however, found no clarification and no foreshadowing of the troubles to come. Neither in Bear's year-end 2006 report (10K, in Securities and Exchange Commission jargon) nor in its March 31, 2007, quarterly filing was there a meaningful word of warning about the sagging prices of the MBSs that did so much to pull Bear down. Those seeking to learn Merrill's exposure to the mortgage contraptions called collateralized debt obligations, or CDOs, were similarly stymied. Although Merrill was to write off $23 billion worth of CDOs in 2007, the phrase "collateralized debt obligation" did not appear once in its 2006 10K.

Because there was often no market for these idiosyncratic securities, Wall Street did not have to value them at market prices. Rather, it marked them "to model." That is, it assigned them prices at which they would trade, according to one mathematical construct or another, if they could trade. Of course, these mathematical constructs tended to cast things in a cheerful, management-approved way. Only later did a telltale plunge in the value of traded mortgage indices open the eyes of the market to the full extent of the troubles.

Prices can be unwelcome pieces of information. When an especially unwelcome batch wells up after a financial collapse, governments try to quash it. So it is today. The SEC has suppressed short selling. The bailout bill will open the door to the suspension of market-value accounting. The Fed is moving heaven and earth to cheapen the value of the dollar.

Long after the crisis burst into the open, the Fed and Treasury downplayed it. It was, they insisted, "contained." Last week they asserted that, unless the House voted "yea," the wheels would come off this $14 trillion economy. President Bush himself has broadly hinted that the nation is on the cusp of disaster.

How can they be so sure? And how can they know that the unintended consequences of the radical policies they are pushing through won't be worse than the panic that they themselves are helping to foment? When the Fed insists it has no choice but to print up hundreds of billions of new dollars and when the keepers of accounting standards bend in the face of criticism that market prices hurt, what they are really saying is the that financial truth is too awful to bear. Heaven help us all if they're right

Bailout a Victory for Al Qaeda?

That's what one of the terrorist group's leaders said in a video released yesterday, according to JihadWatch. Did anyone think of the aid and comfort it would give America's enemies when Wall Street and the US Treasury Department came up with "The Sky Is Falling!" strategy? Heck of a job, Hank Paulson...

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) — An American member of al-Qaida pointed to economic troubles in the United States as proof that "the enemies of Islam" face defeat, in an English-language video released Saturday.

In a half hour video message, California-native Adam Gadahn urged Pakistanis to unite against their government and U.S. forces, and taunted Americans over their economic crisis, relating it to their military interventions.

"The enemies of Islam are facing a crushing defeat, which is beginning to manifest itself in the expanding crisis their economy is experiencing," said Gadahn, in a clip of the message distributed by the SITE Intelligence Group, a Washington-based monitor of militant Web sites.

"A crisis whose primary cause, in addition to the abortive and unsustainable crusades they are waging in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq, is their turning their backs on Allah's revealed laws, which forbid interest-bearing transactions, exploitation, greed and injustice in all its forms." [...]

Gadahn also urged Pakistanis to unite and establish an Islamic state..

Destroying the US economy was one of Bin Laden's stated goals. Blowing up the World Trade Center couldn't do it--but this bailout just might...

Arnold Kling: Bailout Worse Than You Think...

Someone I know referred me to this blog post critical of the bailout by well-known economist Arnold Kling, who coincidentally also was at Swarthmore College when we were there, a senior when we were freshmen...

No major newspaper would run any op-ed from me. I gave up and sent one to American.com, which you can see here. The bottom line:

The financial bailout isn't as bad as Main Street thinks. It's worse.

I think I'll just paste the other one below the fold.

Next, I am going for a long bike ride. You might want to look up a quote from August 1914 about "the lamps are going out all over Europe. We will not see them lit again for a long time." I'm sure a commenter will be able to locate the exact quote and the speaker, an English minister whose name eludes me.

Much of Europe was happy and optimistic when war was finally declared. Many people are happy today that war that has been declared on free markets. Looking at the bright side, it could be worse. This war does not involve sending millions of young men to fight in trenches and launch human wave assaults against machine guns.

Stop the Bailout Dot Com

from stopthehousingbailout.com

Meow! Meow! Meow! Arianna Huffington on Sarah Palin's Debate Peformance

From HuffingtonPost.com:

The only subject on which Palin displayed superior knowledge was when she corrected Biden on the proper delivery of "Drill, baby, drill!" Christie Hefner thought Palin's sex-tinged twist on the chant should be appropriated for a commercial. Perhaps for Viagra.

Other than that, Palin's grasp fluctuated between wafer thin and skin deep. The moment that most drove me to want to send her a book on Greek gods and heroes was her head-scratching response to the question about her Achilles heel. She apparently didn't know what that meant since she spent her allotted time listing all of her attributes as opposed to her most glaring weakness.

Warning: Your Cell Phone May Be Haunted...

At least, that's what I think Mark Horowitz may mean, in this post from his blog, Haunted Screens.

Biden v Palin: Biden Won on Points

No links for this, must more pure personal reaction. Palin did OK, but a little too much Energizer Bunny fembot reciting talking points to have won, goshdarnit! (wink) She really believes in that GREAT AMERICAN HERO: John McCain, David Petraeus, her brother the schooteacher, whomever. As Joe Biden once said in moment of truth (called a "gaffe" by Washingtonians), Palin's pretty, which made her easier to look at--except when her smile dropped, her lips tensed, and she seemed about to scowl, SCARY! Luckily, she usually recovered he beauty-queen poise (see below).

Biden came across as an old pol...not 100 percent credible, but, on the other hand, able to think on his feet. He looks like he had one too many Botox injections on his forehead--bring back some wrinkles please, so we can see expression on what otherwise looks like a rubber mask--but he did show some emotion in a corny "choking up" moment, which worked to humanize him. He actually seemed more real than Palin. Plus the God Bless Our Troops ending was good.

Best of all was Biden saying that McCain was not really a maverick (he really meant that the OLD John McCain was a maverick, while the NEW John McCain running for President is a Bush water-carrier). That took some wind out of Palin's sails. I also liked Biden saying he changed his mind about judicial ideology in the Bork hearings, a way of getting the abortion issue into the debate.

Nice to see that Palin supports gay rights along with Biden! That clarification during the debate should cheer the Christian base of the Republican party no end. Somehow the discomfort showing on Biden's face made him appear more conservative on this issue than Palin, at least to this observer... We'll see how this plays in Peoria--or Michigan.

Meanwhile, Biden turned out to be tall, and Palin turned out to be short! That's always interesting. Palin had a bit of a hunch. She might want to consider taking classes in the Alexander technique...

One thing missing--a discussion of prinicples. Palin was a hero-worshipper, Biden seemed a deal-maker. What's needed is an injection of priniciples into the race, rather than ideology or hero-worship. Principles are what enable people to make rational decisions and plans for new situations, and the President always faces a new situation...

On to the Presdential debates next week.

UPDATE: Snap polls seem to show that the majority of Americans feel the same way I do.

Sarah Palin's 1984 Miss Alaska Swimsuit Competition

Ann Coulter on Why Obama Supports the Bush-Paulson Bailout

From AnnCoulter.com:

Obama was not merely wrong on Fannie Mae: He is owned by Fannie Mae. Somehow Obama managed to become the second biggest all-time recipient of Fannie Mae political money after only three years in the Senate. The biggest beneficiary, Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd, had a 30-year head start on receiving loot from Fannie Mae -- the government-backed institution behind our current crisis.

The Economists' Voice: The Bailout is Bad, Paulson is Wrong

I just received an email from Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz calling my attention to some items that readers of this blog might find of interest--especially given the unfortunate vampire-like undead Paulson bailout bill now in the Senate. Here's the table of contents:

Columns
PDF
Good Bailouts and Bad
David O. Beim
PDF
Please Think This Over
Edward E. Leamer
PDF
A Better Plan for Addressing the Financial Crisis
Lucian A. Bebchuk
PDF
Auction Design Critical for Rescue Plan
Lawrence M. Ausubel and Peter Cramton
PDF
What if the Median Voter Were a Failing Student?
Bryan Caplan
PDF
Questioning the Treasury's $700 Billion Blank Check: An Open Letter to Secretary Paulson
Aaron S. Edlin
PDF
Dr. StrangeLoan: or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Financial Collapse
Aaron S. Edlin
PDF
Why Paulson is Wrong
Luigi Zingales
PDF
Investment Banking Regulation After Bear Stearns
Dwight M. Jaffee and Mark Perlow
PDF
Turn Left for Sustainable Growth
Joseph Stiglitz

And here's the link to The Economist's Voice, where one may download the articles in PDF format (I wish they were in HTML to read online). I assume some Congressmen and Congresswomen should be placing these in the Congressional Record, if forced to vote on the bailout bill again, so you may be hearing more about Economists Against Paulson in the future.

For the life of me, I don't understand why Obama isn't leading the charge against Paulson and Wall Street, using the mess to campaign against Bush-McCain's handling of the economy. There should be a clear difference between McCain and Obama on this, but he's fuzzed it all up, if Paulson's "cash for trash" bill passes, Obama might have a decidedly weaker hand to play when it come to the handling of the economy...

Shanah Tovah!

We're going on holiday...so won't be reading the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008"--which after watching Secretary of the Treasury Paulson's embarrassing sales pitch on 60 Minutes tonight might better be called "There's a Sucker Born Every Minute Act of 2008." If you want to read it, here's the link:

http://financialservices.house.gov/

Hope it doesn't pass.

With constitutent calls running 100-1 against it, you'd think someone in Congress or the Senate would realize that stopping this bill doesn't even require political courage. As Gillis Long used to say, when he wanted to stop legislation: "This is a bad bill."

You don't even have to read it to know it--because no one can explain it clearly.

Congressmen Rahm Emannuel and Barney Frank will have a lot to atone for, come Yom Kippur, should it pass, IMHO. It might even cost Obama the election...

I wish Obama would announce, instead of praising this bill: "The era of bipartisanship is over. We are going to throw the bums out, make them pay, and put those responsible for this criminal mess in jail..."

The way things have been going, that sentiment more likely to come from Sarah Palin! And she'll win the White House, riding voter anger all the way, if McCain ends up filibustering...

UPDATE: The bill failed to pass the House due to bipartisan opposition, which restores one's faith in democracy!

Vladimir Sinelnikov to Present WORLD WAR III: “The Terror Casino”

And I'm on the panel discussing the film on Friday, believe it or not. Here's the press release:

Vladimir Sinelnikov will present World War III:“The Terror Casino” in the Peter Zenger room of the National Press Club on Friday, September 26th from 4-6 pm. Sinelnikov’s new one-hour documentary presents a challenging Russian perspective on the origins and ideology of international terror, one seldom seen in the West. Following the screening, blogger (laurencejarvikonline) and filmmaker Laurence Jarvik (Who Shall Live and Who Shall Die?) will moderate a panel discussion with the filmmaker and Novoye Russkoye Slovo critic Oleg Sulkin.

Sinelnikov is a leading Russian filmmaker, having written, directed, and/or produced over 100 films for television including Tetralogy The Bell of Chernobyl (“shelved” by Soviet censors), about nuclear disaster; The Academician Sakharov – a Man for all Times, about Russia’s Nobel Prize-winning dissident; and Oh, Russia, My Russia...People and Power, Artist and Power, about the return of emigre producer Yuri Lubimov to complete his production of Boris Godunov in the Taganka Theatre—a rehearsal interrupted by Lubimov’s flight from the USSR ten years earlier; and Mirages and Hopes, about Russian emigration to Israel.

Among Sinelnikov’s subjects in World War III:“The Terror Casino” are politicians, religious leaders, scholars, secret service agents, as well as family members of terror victims and those struggling with terror in Muslim nations. It features interviews with Russians such as Mikhail Gorbachev and Alexander Yakovlev (his last interview), Kyrgyz author Chingiz Aitmatov, and Palestinian leaders including Sami Abu-Zuchri, press-secretary of HAMAS. In addition there are interviews with Zbigniew Brzezinski, Rudolph Giuliani, Henry Kissinger, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Nathan Sharansky. Finally, there is testimony from family members of terror victims.

The filmmaker will present, introduce and discuss World War III:“The Terror Casino” with the audience and panel from 4pm to 6pm. Light refreshments will be served. Audio and video recording is permitted.

The National Press Club is located at 529 14th Street NW, Washington, DC 20004, at the corner of 14th & F Street, NW, at Metro Center. Seating is limited. To reserve a seat, please email lajarvik@gmail.com with the subject line “RSVP Sinelnikov,” before noon Friday, September 26th.

This event is presented in cooperation with Clotho Studio and the Russian-American Arts Foundation.

Contact:
Leah Shamalov (NY)
Russian-American Arts Foundation
(212) 687-6118
lshamalov@aol.com

RSVP:
Laurence Jarvik (DC)
http://laurencejarvikonline.blogspot.com
(202) 390-8676
lajarvik@gmail.com

Memo to Obama: Stop Wall Street Bailout to Win November Election

No links today, this is my own thought.

Obama must show that he is not part of the bipartisan establishment consensus in Washington that got the US economy into the mess it is now in by opposing any bailout legislation the Bush administration attempts to rush through Congress. No problem supporting some sort of temporary quick-fix to tide things over until after the election--but that 700 billion to 1 trillion from Secretary of the Treasury Paulson is a poison pill for the Obama campaign.

The time for bipartisanship is over. What people want now is a choice--change or more of the same. That means a partisan campaign. It is not up to Obama to fix the problem UNTIL HE IS ELECTED. He should not help Bush--and therefore McCain--fix the problem before the elections.

IMHO, if he agrees to any bailout package, he will lose in November. Because he undercuts his campaign message of change.

Further, he may even have to pull the Mr. Smith Goes To Washington tactic and threaten to filibuster any more attempts by Bush (and McCain) to shovel US taxpayers' cash into their pockets on the way out the door.

He can come up with a plan to save the economy--but the deal must be that Obama has to be elected first. Don't let Bush/McCain squirm through an opening of the emergency bailout. There has been far too much use of "emergency" legislation from 9/11 to the present. The era of "emergency" is over. Now we're going to have some rational planning.

As far as McCain goes--he can join Obama in opposition, which supports Obama's leadership credentials, or he can side with Bush. It is a lose-lose choice for McCain.

However, Obama cannot afford to be another compromising, bipartisan, establishment, go-along get-along Washington politician. Whatever short term gain or payoff to Democratic cronies is in the Bush bill, it is not worth passing. This is Obama's "moment of truth," where the American public can see whether he has what it takes to be President.

He may have to stand up to his own party to filibuster the bill--that's good, too. But he must beat Bush, beat Paulson, beat Wall Street, and beat McCain in order to win this November.

Americans want a leader who takes the time to get things right, not another Bush rush job that ends in disaster--like handing out credit cards after Hurricane Katrina...

Christopher Hitchens on Bernard Henri-Levy

From today's NY Times Book Review:

One or two of his chapters can be described as almost an interior monologue or stream of consciousness, where the son of a man who fought for the Spanish Republic is having trouble with a redefinition of what the verses of the “Internationale” call “the wretched of the earth.” Not everyone will share in the historic misery of this experience, of having seen Cambodia or Zimbabwe, say, turn into something rather worse than a negation of the liberating dream.

But for those who have, as well as for those who haven’t, Lévy provides a good register of what it felt like. And then there is this:

“I’m convinced that the collapse of the Communist house almost everywhere has even, in certain cases, had the unexpected side effect of wiping out the traces of its crimes, the visible signs of its failure, allowing certain people to start dreaming once again of an unsullied Communism, uncompromised and happy.”

If this is not precisely true, even of those nostalgic for “Fidel,” apologetic about Hugo Chávez, credulous about how “secular” the Baath Party was, or prone to sympathize with Vladimir Putin concerning the “encircling” of his country by aggressive titans like Estonia and Kosovo and Georgia, still it does contain a truth. One could actually have gone further and argued that the totalitarian temptation now extends to an endorsement of Islam ism as the last, best hope of humanity against the American empire. I could without difficulty name some prominent leftists, from George Galloway to Michael Moore, who have used the same glowing terms to describe “resistance” in, say, Iraq as they would once have employed for the Red Army or the Vietcong. Trawling the intellectual history of Europe, as he is able to do with some skill, Lévy comes across an ancestor of this sinister convergence in a yearning remark confided to his journal by the fascist writer Paul Claudel on May 21, 1935: “Hitler’s speech; a kind of Islamism is being created at the center of Europe.”

Christopher Hitchens on Pakistan

From Slate:

The very name Pakistan inscribes the nature of the problem. It is not a real country or nation but an acronym devised in the 1930s by a Muslim propagandist for partition named Chaudhary Rahmat Ali. It stands for Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, and Indus-Sind. The stan suffix merely means "land." In the Urdu language, the resulting acronym means "land of the pure." It can be easily seen that this very name expresses expansionist tendencies and also conceals discriminatory ones. Kashmir, for example, is part of India. The Afghans are Muslim but not part of Pakistan. Most of Punjab is also in India. Interestingly, too, there is no B in this cobbled-together name, despite the fact that the country originally included the eastern part of Bengal (now Bangladesh, after fighting a war of independence against genocidal Pakistani repression) and still includes Baluchistan, a restive and neglected province that has been fighting a low-level secessionist struggle for decades. The P comes first only because Pakistan is essentially the property of the Punjabi military caste (which hated Benazir Bhutto, for example, because she came from Sind). As I once wrote, the country's name "might as easily be rendered as 'Akpistan' or 'Kapistan,' depending on whether the battle to take over Afghanistan or Kashmir is to the fore."

I could have phrased that a bit more tightly, since the original Pakistani motive for annexing and controlling Afghanistan is precisely the acquisition of "strategic depth" for its never-ending confrontation with India over Kashmir. And that dispute became latently thermonuclear while we simply looked on. One of the most creditable (and neglected) foreign-policy shifts of the Bush administration after 9/11 was away from our dangerous regional dependence on the untrustworthy and ramshackle Pakistan and toward a much more generous rapprochement with India, the world's other great federal, democratic, and multiethnic state.

Recent accounts of murderous violence in the capital cities of two of our allies, India and Afghanistan, make it appear overwhelmingly probable that the bombs were not the work of local or homegrown "insurgents" but were orchestrated by agents of the Pakistani ISI. This is a fantastically unacceptable state of affairs, which needs to be given its right name of state-sponsored terrorism. Meanwhile, and on Pakistani soil and under the very noses of its army and the ISI, the city of Quetta and the so-called Federally Administered Tribal Areas are becoming the incubating ground of a reorganized and protected al-Qaida. Sen. Barack Obama has, if anything, been the more militant of the two presidential candidates in stressing the danger here and the need to act without too much sentiment about our so-called Islamabad ally. He began using this rhetoric when it was much simpler to counterpose the "good" war in Afghanistan with the "bad" one in Iraq. Never mind that now; he is committed in advance to a serious projection of American power into the heartland of our deadliest enemy. And that, I think, is another reason why so many people are reluctant to employ truthful descriptions for the emerging Afghan-Pakistan confrontation: American liberals can't quite face the fact that if their man does win in November, and if he has meant a single serious word he's ever said, it means more war, and more bitter and protracted war at that—not less.

Bernard Henri-Levy on Afghanistan

Discussing a controversy over photographs of dead French troops published in Paris Match, in a column from Gulf News:

First, the Taliban's state of mind: the fact that they hate the French only a little less than they hate the Americans, and that the clever minds who thought they might get into the Taliban's good graces by keeping a low profile and being discreet and ingratiating - even collaborating with them - were sadly mistaken.

Then there is the fact that they are not "resistance fighters", "religious students" or anything of the sort. Instead they are motivated by cynicism, choosing to celebrate a recent military success by displaying trophies and parading around as in ancient times.

We also learn - and this is hardly without importance - that they are what we call these days good communicators, able to stage their own photographs, posing for the camera (especially since the photographer says that is exactly what happened, and there is no reason to doubt her word).

Finally, those of us who wanted it neither heard nor said, or who considered it a state secret, are reminded that for years and years, the French have had elite commandos fighting shoulder to shoulder with the American Special Forces in the Afghan mountains.

The report reminds these people - and this is key - that France is fighting a war over there, a real war that also happens to be as undeclared as the war it fought in Algeria 50 years ago.

BHL will speak again in Washington at the French Embassy's La Maison Francaise on September 20th at 8 pm. The event is sold out, more information here.

Inside Eastern State Penitentiary

Last weekend, someone I know and this blogger visited Eastern State Penitentiary in Philaldelphia, Pennsylvania--not for the "Terror Behind the Walls" haunted house experience, but for the daytime tour of America's oldest penal institution. It was here that among the most progressive of America's founding fathers conducted the first experiment to improve human behavior by eliminating torture and beatings of prisoners.

Instead, Benjamin Franklin, Dr. Benjamin Rush, and a group of Pennsylvania Quakers decided to use isolation in solitary confinement to induce reflection, repentenance, and a new way of life for inmates. The experiment began in 1790 in the Philadelphia's Walnut Street Jail. In 1821, the Philadelphia Society for Alleviating the Miseries of Public Prisons succeeding in persuading the Legislature to fund the Eastern State Penitentary for 250 prisoners. Architect William Strickland, a namesake of someone I went to college with, was fired from the job in 1822, replaced by John Haviland. In 1826, the Marquis de La Fayette, one of my favorite historical characters, visited the construction site. In 1829, the prison finally opened.

Many leaders believe that crime is the result of environment, and that solitude will make the criminal regretful and penitent (hence the new word, Penitentiary). This correctional theory, as practiced in Philadelphia, will become known as the Pennsylvania System.

Plans are finalized to prohibit all contact between prisoners at Eastern State, the world's most ambitious Penitentiary, now nearly ready for its first inmates.

Masks are fabricated to keep the inmates from communicating during rare trips outside their cells. Cells are equipped with feed doors and individual exercise yards to prevent contact between inmates, and minimize contact between inmates and guards.

Prisoners were permitted to read only one book--the Bible--by the light from a single round skylight designed to resemble the eye of God looking down on the person in the cell below, a porthole through which one could observe heaven--and repent.

In 1832, the prison was visited by a French delegation that included Alexis de Tocqueville. The so-called "Pennyslvania System" became a model for European penology, leading to the construction of similar buildings across the world. But one foreign visitor was appalled by what he saw in the supposedly humane and progressive institution--Charles Dickens. He wrote in his American Notes:"The System is rigid, strict and hopeless solitary confinement, and I believe it, in its effects, to be cruel and wrong...."

In 1913, Eastern State officially ended the "Pennsylvania System." Later prisoners included Al Capone, who spent eight months in a luxurious "single" furnished with rugs, lamps, and a radio (ordinary prisoners shared cells after 1913). Riots caused by overcrowding and poor conditions gave the model prison a bad name in the 1930s, it was closed in 1970.

Now, with funding from the Pew Charitable Trusts and the William Penn Foundation, among other sponsors, the prison is run as a museum and night-time Disney-style attraction. It is well worth a visit...a living example of how the road to hell is sometimes indeed paved with the very best of intentions.

Happy Ramadan!

It's a month of prayer and fasting. Wikipedia has the full story of the holiday, here.

Parag Khanna's Second World

A little bird told me that Wired magazine will run an article on Parag Khanna, author of .

Like Fareed Zakaria, Khanna is a former insider at the Council on Foreign Relations, so his views tend to reflect those of the Eastern Establishment, which makes them significant. The bird told me about Khanna because Khanna thinks we are entering a new Middle Ages, rather than Fukuyama's End of History. And if this is the Middle Ages, that makes Central Asia very important again--no doubt because it was named as such by Sir Halford Mackinder, author of the "Pivot Point" theory of world history, where control over center of the Eurasian landmass would lead to control of the world. And Khanna seems to think that control is headed towards--China, as he explained in an excerpt from his book published in The Guardian (UK):

It is difficult to find a westerner who does not intuitively support the idea of a free Tibet. But would Americans ever let go of Texas or California? For China, the Anglo-Russian great game for control of central Asia was neither inconclusive nor fruitless, something that cannot be said for Russia or Britain. Indeed, China was the big winner.

Boundary agreements in 1895 and 1907 gave Russia the Pamir mountains and established the Wakhan Corridor - the slender eastern tongue of Afghanistan that borders China - as a buffer to Britain. But rather than cede East Turkestan (Uighurstan) to the Russians, the British financed China's recapture of the territory, which it organised into Xinjiang (which means "New Dominions"). While West Turkestan was splintered into the hermetic Soviet Stans, China reasserted its traditional dominance over Xinjiang and Tibet, today its largest - and least stable - provinces. (Beijing has now accused the Dalai Lama of colluding with Muslim Uighur separatists in Xinjiang.) But without them, the country would be like America without all territory west of the Rockies: denied its continental majesty and status.

Every backpacker who has visited Tibet and Xinjiang in the past decade knows that the Chinese empire is painfully real: the western region's going concern is undoubtedly Chinese Manifest Destiny. With the end of the civil war in 1949, China endeavoured immediately to overcome the "tyranny of terrain" and tame the interminable mountain and desert landscapes with the aim of exploiting vast natural assets, establishing penal colonies and military bases, and expand the Lebensraum for its exploding population.

Both Tibet and Xinjiang have the misfortune of possessing resources China wants and of being situated on the path to resources China needs: Tibet has vast amounts of timber, uranium and gold, and the two territories constitute China's geographic gateway for trade flow outward - and energy flow inward - with Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Decades of labour by the army and swarms of workers have paved the way for unchallenged Chinese dominance. The high-altitude train linking Shanghai and Lhasa that began service in 2006 represents not the beginning of Chinese hegemony, but its culmination.

Tibet and Xinjiang today set the stage for the birth of a multi-ethnic empire in ways that resemble nothing so much as America's frontier expansion nearly two centuries ago. Chinese think about their mission civilatrice much as American settlers did: they are bringing development and modernity. Asiatic, Buddhist Tibetans and Turkic, Muslim Uighurs are being lifted out of the third world - whether they like it or not.

They are getting roads, telephone lines, hospitals and jobs. School fees are being reduced or abolished to promote basic education and Chineseness. Unlike those Europeans who seek to define the EU as a Christian club, there are no Chinese inhibitions about incorporating Muslim territories. The new mythology of Chinese nationalism is based not on expunging minorities but granting them a common status in the paternalistic state: Uighurs and Tibetans, though not Han, are told they are Chinese.

"The Soviet Union collapsed because they experimented with glasnost prematurely, before the achieved unity among the peoples," explains a Chinese intellectual in Shanghai who studies central Asia. Large empires are maintained through a combination of force and law; and as recent weeks illustrate, China is determined not to waver.

Haunted Screens

Wired Magazine's New York Editor (and my college roommate at UC Berkeley--go Bears!) has a blog called Haunted Screens. No, it's not about which Horror pix to download from Netflix, at least not yet...(full disclosure, it links to this blog)

governmentbailout.com

Attention all Wall Street Moguls. The site is real! It exists! Here's the link:

http://governmentbailout.com

If only Lehman Brothers had known about this, they might have ended up like AIG...

British-Russian Diplomatic F-Word Controversy Continues...

Speaking of international crises, using clips from a BBC radio interview with Foreign Secretary David Milliband, Russia Today puts its own spin on whether Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov used the F-word in diplomatic communication... (I think he may have done):

Putin Speaks on Russian-Georgian War

On Russia Today, Russia's version of the Voice of America, Putin told a French journalist from Le Figaro that he blames the US for the Georgian war:

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.