We are witnessing a spontaneous eruption of forces that might (emphasis, might) lead to permanent regime change in Iran. The mainstream media's coverage has been spotty and the blogosphere's reactions have been a bit too breathless for my liking, but there is absolutely no denying that a substantial portion of Iran's population will not accept having a president foisted upon it, even if those doing the foisting presume to act according to divine will. Thus we are witnessing scenes that are more than a little reminiscent of scenes from West Germany and Romania in the late 1980s or Serbia in the late 1990s.
I do not know what the outcome will be - not all uprisings end well. But that is far bigger than one election and tells us something fundamental about Iran - it is a complicated country that never should have never been reduced to a member of the Axis of Evil or the antics of its buffoonish, virtually illiterate President. Judging Iran by Ahmenidajad just as silly as judging America based on George W. Bush. And we should never forget when certain individuals advocate violence against Iran's regime, they are also advocating violence against the brave young people in the streets of Tehran. Bombs do not discriminate on the basis of political persuasion.
Lastly, many in the West would like Obama and other leaders to take a stronger line in support of the protesters. This would be a mistake. While Obama, Harper, and other Western leaders should express solidarity and call for an end to violence, the worst thing that could happen is for the West to try to co-opt the opposition. This is a home-grown revolution. It is not something planted by Western leaders or forced on Iran with bombs and therefore its legitimacy cannot be questioned.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
The Obama Method
I have written previously of the current President's remarkable calm that seems to have the effect of having his opponents lash out in destructive and unproductive ways.
We are seeing another excellent example of this with his handling of the torture controversy. (I think it is safe to no longer use euphemisms given the recent disclosures concerning the Bush administration's coercive interrogation program).
While many, including me, were demanding investigations and prosecutions, Obama did not take a position. This infuriated many progressives who wanted an immediate accounting of the crimes of the Bush administration. Others simply resigned themselves to the fact that an investigation of the torture program was not politically feasible.
But it would not be Obama's style to either bang the drum for prosecutions or simply sweep the ugly period of history aside. By releasing the memos, which chillingly and dispassionately justify such acts as banging detainees' heads against walls and waterboarding, he is building a nascent consensus that something must be done. Indeed, even Dick Cheney, who is implicated in the torture policy, is now arguing that more needs to be known about the program. A truth commission, an idea that was once pushed only by Sen. Patrick Leahy and lawyers such as Jack Balkin (Balkinization) and Dahlia Lithwick (Slate) is now piquing widespread interest.
The administration is now even talking about prosecuting the lawyers who had their fingerprints all over the program, given the widespread condemnation of their work. (I take a small measure of pride in this because when I wrote an article entitled Can Lawyers Be War Criminals? sometime ago that addressed the work of Bybee and Yoo, this was perceived as an extreme position).
In decrying Obama's release of the memos, defenders of the torture program have now backed themselves into a corner. They can no longer credibly argue that some of the actions taken by CIA officers were not torture (indeed, by waterboarding one detainee 183 times, the CIA violated even the loose standards of the Bybee/Yoo Office of Legal Counsel). Ultimately, all they can say now is that it worked. Despite being beside the point - it is not a defense to torture that it happened to produce the requested information - no one really believes this. You don't waterboard someone that many times because your torture is working.
The full truth will come out and Obama's deserves credit for it because it would have been easy for him "in the spirit of bi-partisanship" to allow this all to blow over, especially in a time when people have other concerns that what the United States did to suspected terrorists after 9/11.
We are seeing another excellent example of this with his handling of the torture controversy. (I think it is safe to no longer use euphemisms given the recent disclosures concerning the Bush administration's coercive interrogation program).
While many, including me, were demanding investigations and prosecutions, Obama did not take a position. This infuriated many progressives who wanted an immediate accounting of the crimes of the Bush administration. Others simply resigned themselves to the fact that an investigation of the torture program was not politically feasible.
But it would not be Obama's style to either bang the drum for prosecutions or simply sweep the ugly period of history aside. By releasing the memos, which chillingly and dispassionately justify such acts as banging detainees' heads against walls and waterboarding, he is building a nascent consensus that something must be done. Indeed, even Dick Cheney, who is implicated in the torture policy, is now arguing that more needs to be known about the program. A truth commission, an idea that was once pushed only by Sen. Patrick Leahy and lawyers such as Jack Balkin (Balkinization) and Dahlia Lithwick (Slate) is now piquing widespread interest.
The administration is now even talking about prosecuting the lawyers who had their fingerprints all over the program, given the widespread condemnation of their work. (I take a small measure of pride in this because when I wrote an article entitled Can Lawyers Be War Criminals? sometime ago that addressed the work of Bybee and Yoo, this was perceived as an extreme position).
In decrying Obama's release of the memos, defenders of the torture program have now backed themselves into a corner. They can no longer credibly argue that some of the actions taken by CIA officers were not torture (indeed, by waterboarding one detainee 183 times, the CIA violated even the loose standards of the Bybee/Yoo Office of Legal Counsel). Ultimately, all they can say now is that it worked. Despite being beside the point - it is not a defense to torture that it happened to produce the requested information - no one really believes this. You don't waterboard someone that many times because your torture is working.
The full truth will come out and Obama's deserves credit for it because it would have been easy for him "in the spirit of bi-partisanship" to allow this all to blow over, especially in a time when people have other concerns that what the United States did to suspected terrorists after 9/11.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
The Reckoning
I do not write as frequently in this space as I should, although I promise to return and update you regarding any pieces in print or online publications.
However, this excellent piece of news should not pass without notice: Obama has decided to release the classified memos authored by lawyers in the Bush White House that allegedly authorized torture techniques by the CIA.
This was not as easy a decision as it might appear. Forces within the CIA do not want their actions second-guessed and many Republicans were against the memos being released for fear of calls for a full investigation of the torture program.
But healthy democracies do not brush controversial actions taken by their leaders under the rug. We know enough already to justify the possible prosecution of several Bush administration figures. Indeed, Spain is already considering such a prosecution in the absence of action by the United States.
Once the full truth comes out, we will see whether Americans have the stomach for a full investigation. My belief is that they do and those who are complicit in torture will one day face justice.
However, this excellent piece of news should not pass without notice: Obama has decided to release the classified memos authored by lawyers in the Bush White House that allegedly authorized torture techniques by the CIA.
This was not as easy a decision as it might appear. Forces within the CIA do not want their actions second-guessed and many Republicans were against the memos being released for fear of calls for a full investigation of the torture program.
But healthy democracies do not brush controversial actions taken by their leaders under the rug. We know enough already to justify the possible prosecution of several Bush administration figures. Indeed, Spain is already considering such a prosecution in the absence of action by the United States.
Once the full truth comes out, we will see whether Americans have the stomach for a full investigation. My belief is that they do and those who are complicit in torture will one day face justice.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Everyone Hates AIG
When even Republican politicians are suggesting that you may wish to consider suicide for running your company into the ground, you know things are serious:
"I would suggest the first thing that would make me feel a little better toward
them [AIG executives] is if they follow the Japanese example and come before the
American people and take that deep bow and say, 'I am sorry,' and then either do
one of two things: resign or go commit suicide."Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Can Obama Save the World Economy?
The refusal to bail out Lehman Brothers because of the alleged risk of moral hazard may have essentially doomed the United States to an extend recession (one that has since spread world-wide).
But what Obama did tonight in his address was clearly say to the world that he understands how multi-faceted the challenges his country faces. He understands the risks of a stimulus plan. He understands the dangers of bailing out the same institutions that have behaved irresponsibly for years. He outlined concrete steps to ensure that any funds used for bailouts and other economic recovery measures will not be misspent. Will Obama succeed? I don't know.
What I am sure of, however, is that a large part of the problem is one of confidence. Listening to the President talk about job creation and rebuilding infrastructure, as well as greater oversight of financial institutions and management of government spending, one has the sense that he has a plan. And if you are worried about your job and being unable to care for your family, Obama's promises of lower tuition and cheaper healthcare for all were likely reassuring.
This is not say that people are going to buy stock like it's going out of style tomorrow morning, but after the last eight years of Bush's ostrich presidency, it helps a great deal to have a President who unquestionably knows what he is talking about and understands the challenges his country faces.
..................................
I also thought that Bobby Jindal's response was a pretty transparent (and pathetic) attempt to feed off the Obama phenomenon. Hence, Jindal's touting of Obama's diverse background and then invocation of his own. Memo to Jindal: Part of the appeal of Obama is he has never exploited his background. Could you imagine Obama quoting his immigrant father 3 times in a short speech?
It also took remarkable gall for Jindal to use the federal government's horrible performance during Katrina to argue that the Democrats were wrong to trust the government to turn around the economy. I don't see how talking about Katrina (one of the lowest of many low moments of the Bush presidency) helps Republicans, and Katrina, a collective failure if there ever was one, shouldn't be used to score cheap political points in any case.
But what Obama did tonight in his address was clearly say to the world that he understands how multi-faceted the challenges his country faces. He understands the risks of a stimulus plan. He understands the dangers of bailing out the same institutions that have behaved irresponsibly for years. He outlined concrete steps to ensure that any funds used for bailouts and other economic recovery measures will not be misspent. Will Obama succeed? I don't know.
What I am sure of, however, is that a large part of the problem is one of confidence. Listening to the President talk about job creation and rebuilding infrastructure, as well as greater oversight of financial institutions and management of government spending, one has the sense that he has a plan. And if you are worried about your job and being unable to care for your family, Obama's promises of lower tuition and cheaper healthcare for all were likely reassuring.
This is not say that people are going to buy stock like it's going out of style tomorrow morning, but after the last eight years of Bush's ostrich presidency, it helps a great deal to have a President who unquestionably knows what he is talking about and understands the challenges his country faces.
..................................
I also thought that Bobby Jindal's response was a pretty transparent (and pathetic) attempt to feed off the Obama phenomenon. Hence, Jindal's touting of Obama's diverse background and then invocation of his own. Memo to Jindal: Part of the appeal of Obama is he has never exploited his background. Could you imagine Obama quoting his immigrant father 3 times in a short speech?
It also took remarkable gall for Jindal to use the federal government's horrible performance during Katrina to argue that the Democrats were wrong to trust the government to turn around the economy. I don't see how talking about Katrina (one of the lowest of many low moments of the Bush presidency) helps Republicans, and Katrina, a collective failure if there ever was one, shouldn't be used to score cheap political points in any case.
Friday, January 30, 2009
The World Is Ending . . .
Otherwise known as the day I agreed with Rudy Guiliani over Barack Obama...
President Obama recently called the bonuses paid out by Wall Street firms that have been the recipient of bailout funds "shameful." Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill did him one better, stating, "We have a bunch of idiots on Wall Street that are kicking sand in the face of the American taxpayer . . . They don't get it. These people are idiots."
Criticizing Wall Street fat cats is easy, and it's good politics. And obviously those who manage Wall Street banks should not be paying themselves hefty bonus when it is their short-sightedness that drove these banks into the ground.
As a New Yorker though, I can tell you that Rudy is 100% right that NYC's economy is massively dependent on Wall Street bonuses. As is, the 44% cut in bonuses is causing a massive shortfall that the Bloomberg government is trying to fill. And it is not just the bankers who benefit from their bonuses but almost everyone else in the service industry.
Wall street firms have had a dismal year. There have been massive layoffs. Those who are still around cannot be sure to be around next year. If Wall Street firms feel that some of the taxpayer funds are best directed to their employees - whose efforts they will need to turn things around - so be it.
This brings out a fundamental point about the bank bailout. The government is in a strange position where it does not own the banks that have received bailut dollars but can effectively tell these banks what to do. For example, the aforementioned McCaskill is now trying to dictate that no employee of a bank affiliated with the bailout can make more than the President of the United States.
Why stop there? Why not say that they can't make more than the official Washington, DC dog catcher?
Either the government should let these banks run themselves or it should take over day-to-day operations. The current situation is not helping anyone, least of all taxpayers who not only have to grin and bear their tax dollars going to Wall Street but must watch as the politicians who voted to give away their tax dollars act as champions of the common man.
President Obama recently called the bonuses paid out by Wall Street firms that have been the recipient of bailout funds "shameful." Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill did him one better, stating, "We have a bunch of idiots on Wall Street that are kicking sand in the face of the American taxpayer . . . They don't get it. These people are idiots."
Criticizing Wall Street fat cats is easy, and it's good politics. And obviously those who manage Wall Street banks should not be paying themselves hefty bonus when it is their short-sightedness that drove these banks into the ground.
As a New Yorker though, I can tell you that Rudy is 100% right that NYC's economy is massively dependent on Wall Street bonuses. As is, the 44% cut in bonuses is causing a massive shortfall that the Bloomberg government is trying to fill. And it is not just the bankers who benefit from their bonuses but almost everyone else in the service industry.
Wall street firms have had a dismal year. There have been massive layoffs. Those who are still around cannot be sure to be around next year. If Wall Street firms feel that some of the taxpayer funds are best directed to their employees - whose efforts they will need to turn things around - so be it.
This brings out a fundamental point about the bank bailout. The government is in a strange position where it does not own the banks that have received bailut dollars but can effectively tell these banks what to do. For example, the aforementioned McCaskill is now trying to dictate that no employee of a bank affiliated with the bailout can make more than the President of the United States.
Why stop there? Why not say that they can't make more than the official Washington, DC dog catcher?
Either the government should let these banks run themselves or it should take over day-to-day operations. The current situation is not helping anyone, least of all taxpayers who not only have to grin and bear their tax dollars going to Wall Street but must watch as the politicians who voted to give away their tax dollars act as champions of the common man.
The Harshest Theater Review I Have Ever Read
The New York Times' Ben Brantley really really did not like the new production of Henrik Ibsen's Hedda Gabler, starring Mary Louise Parker. With theatres struggling and the influence of the Times, I would not be surprised if this review effectively shutters the production.
Although I am a big fan of Mary Louise Parker - she is excellent in Weeds and was very good in Proof on Broadway a few years back - she seems a strange choice for Hedda Gabler. To me, Hedda has an imperious quality that I don't think Parker has. That being said, to what extent should a reviewer take into account the effect his words are likely to have? It's all well and good to not recommend a play, but was it necessary to essentially suggest that anyone who sees the play is a fool? Is there not one redeeming feature in the production?
The other bizarre thing about the review is that his chief criticism of the play is that the actors all seemed to be on different pages. This is the exact same criticism I had of the recent production of Chekov's the Seagull by the same director. But Brantley loved the Seagull, calling it one of the best revivals he had ever seen.
Although I am a big fan of Mary Louise Parker - she is excellent in Weeds and was very good in Proof on Broadway a few years back - she seems a strange choice for Hedda Gabler. To me, Hedda has an imperious quality that I don't think Parker has. That being said, to what extent should a reviewer take into account the effect his words are likely to have? It's all well and good to not recommend a play, but was it necessary to essentially suggest that anyone who sees the play is a fool? Is there not one redeeming feature in the production?
The other bizarre thing about the review is that his chief criticism of the play is that the actors all seemed to be on different pages. This is the exact same criticism I had of the recent production of Chekov's the Seagull by the same director. But Brantley loved the Seagull, calling it one of the best revivals he had ever seen.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Bush's Legacy
Seemingly overnight George Bush has left our lives. I thought it entirely appropriate that he slinked off to Texas, very much yesterday's man. Even his farewell speech drew a collective yawn from critics and fans alike.
I also thought it entirely appropriate that Obama made it clear that he was going to take the country in an entirely different direction, even if some Bush loyalists are unhappy that Obama did not soft peddle the disastrous state in which Bush left the United States. Sorry, gentlemen, you don't get to run the country into the ground for eight years and then get to exist gracefully just because President Bush invited the new occupants of the White House over for milk and cookies during the transition.
Already Obama has signaled his attention to 1) Shut down Guantanamo, 2) close the kangaroo courts used by the previous administration to try terrorists and 3) end government-approved torture. It's an excellent start.
But we should not forget, even for a moment, the massive excrescence of the Bush presidency. The fact that his flunkies have been trumpeting the "success" of the Iraq War indicates what a complete failure the presidency has been. The US economy is in tatters. New Orleans was almost allowed to wash away. His medicare drug plan is now the most expensive entitlement and seems only to have pleased the drug companies. States have sued over No Child Left Behind.
On the foreign policy, the story is even more grim. The administration ignored signs of terrorist attacks prior to 9/11. It then used 9/11 as an excuse to start an expensive and drawn-out war in Iraq, that, in even the most optimistic of projections, will produce a restless democracy that is cozy with Iran. The fiasco involving the alleged WMDs weakened the credibility of the United States immeasurably. Photos from Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo made the United States seem to many in the world no better than a tyrant like Saddam.
Afghanistan appeared to be a victory for the President, but was quickly forgotten by his administration, leading to the current situation where Western forces are in a bloody stalemate with Taliban fighters. Just today there was a story of the Taliban throwing acid in the faces of girls who dared to attend school. The government of Hamid Karzai is an ineffective kleptocracy.
Bush exuded bravado when it came to Russia's intrusion into Georgia but in the end did nothing. The President also stood by as Israel fought 2 wars during his term, wars that produced many civilian casualties and contributed little to Israel's safety.
The President also spoke of democracy and freedom while cozying up to dictators like Musharraf. On the bright side, at least the former terrorist, now key ally, Colonel Qaddafi has been sufficiently rehabilitated that he can now pen thoughtful op-eds in the NY Times.
I could go on but this is killing my Obama buzz.
I also thought it entirely appropriate that Obama made it clear that he was going to take the country in an entirely different direction, even if some Bush loyalists are unhappy that Obama did not soft peddle the disastrous state in which Bush left the United States. Sorry, gentlemen, you don't get to run the country into the ground for eight years and then get to exist gracefully just because President Bush invited the new occupants of the White House over for milk and cookies during the transition.
Already Obama has signaled his attention to 1) Shut down Guantanamo, 2) close the kangaroo courts used by the previous administration to try terrorists and 3) end government-approved torture. It's an excellent start.
But we should not forget, even for a moment, the massive excrescence of the Bush presidency. The fact that his flunkies have been trumpeting the "success" of the Iraq War indicates what a complete failure the presidency has been. The US economy is in tatters. New Orleans was almost allowed to wash away. His medicare drug plan is now the most expensive entitlement and seems only to have pleased the drug companies. States have sued over No Child Left Behind.
On the foreign policy, the story is even more grim. The administration ignored signs of terrorist attacks prior to 9/11. It then used 9/11 as an excuse to start an expensive and drawn-out war in Iraq, that, in even the most optimistic of projections, will produce a restless democracy that is cozy with Iran. The fiasco involving the alleged WMDs weakened the credibility of the United States immeasurably. Photos from Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo made the United States seem to many in the world no better than a tyrant like Saddam.
Afghanistan appeared to be a victory for the President, but was quickly forgotten by his administration, leading to the current situation where Western forces are in a bloody stalemate with Taliban fighters. Just today there was a story of the Taliban throwing acid in the faces of girls who dared to attend school. The government of Hamid Karzai is an ineffective kleptocracy.
Bush exuded bravado when it came to Russia's intrusion into Georgia but in the end did nothing. The President also stood by as Israel fought 2 wars during his term, wars that produced many civilian casualties and contributed little to Israel's safety.
The President also spoke of democracy and freedom while cozying up to dictators like Musharraf. On the bright side, at least the former terrorist, now key ally, Colonel Qaddafi has been sufficiently rehabilitated that he can now pen thoughtful op-eds in the NY Times.
I could go on but this is killing my Obama buzz.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
