WhirledView

Message from the Lunatic Fringe? - Updated 7/19/08

by Cheryl Rofer

Let's see...

We know that Israel will attack Iran some time in the near future with conventional weapons. Because Israel's conventional bombing power is not on a par with the US's, it will have to escalate to nuclear weapons.

So the rational thing for the United States to do is to attack Iran before Israel does.

Uh, yeah.

Benny Morris's op-ed in the New York Times today is based on the assumption that Iran's nuclear program is unacceptable to Israel and therefore any action by Israel is acceptable. These definitions of acceptable are of an Israel-centric paranoia that excludes the retaliation of Iran, a state that is very large in geographical area, against Israel, a state that is very small in geographic area. Presumably whoever is dreaming up these fantasies thinks that the United States would step in before such a thing could happen.

Morris raises the bugaboo of undeterrable, wild-eyed mullahs but ignores the mirror image of crazed Israeli militarists, who stand to lose a lot more, even with the US riding over the hillside to their defense.

Iran’s leaders would do well to rethink their gamble and suspend their nuclear program.

Uh, yeah.

Morris has, in the past, given us a look at how Israel's leaders think. This op-ed doesn't delineate between the thinking of Israel's leaders and Morris's advocacy. It is so overheated that, if this is indeed the thinking of the leaders, it is time for President Bush to invite President Olmert and others for a calming meeting in the forests of Camp David and perhaps to send a crate of Prozac to Tel Aviv.

Update (7/19/08): I didn't say much about Benny Morris's background because I wasn't sure I was recalling it correctly, so bizarrely did this op-ed contrast with what I thought I recalled. And I didn't have time to google it up.

David Kaiser, who, as a historian, recalls much more clearly than I do, gives us the background here. I did recall correctly, although not in detail.

On the matter at hand, Kaiser's last paragraph is very worth reading. Read the whole thing.

It has occurred to me that the emergence of such an extreme appeal for a preventive war to prevent a preventive war may indicate that the extremists in Israel may see that the Bush administration is finally gravitating toward a foreign policy that is not designed for perpetual war. Thus, they feel that they have to posit more and more extreme scenarios to goad the US back toward military prevention. The ugly side of this is that we don't know whether this op-ed represents the thinking of the Israeli government.

The New Yorker and the Ox Gored

By Patricia Lee Sharpe

The New Yorker depicting the Obamas as terrorists?

Having criticized the bombing of the Buddhist statues in Bamiyan and having also written that those Danish cartoons must be tolerated in the name of free speech, even if many Muslims found them blasphemous, I found myself reading reports of the latest New Yorker cover with dismay. No way could I advocate censorship on racist or religious grounds. I couldn’t advocate apologies from the editors either, not even for bad judgement. And I certainly couldn’t ask for a hiatus in distribution.

So the ox was being gored, and I had to smile, even though it hurt.

If people didn’t get the joke—and I have to admit that the so-called satire came across as pretty opaque to this person who cherishes her weekly dose of New Yorker humor, what would happen to the Democrats’ presidential aspirations in November?

However, I couldn’t properly judge the cover without seeing the real thing, so I was feeling pretty revved up when I went to the post office to collect my mail.

What did I find in my box? Bills. Supermarket ads. Slick catalogues. Invitations to art openings. No New Yorker.

Ooops! I’d cut my renewal too close, evidently. I pulled out my checkbook to confirm my foolishness. Nope! I’d paid in plenty of time. My New Yorker had been swiped. Since popular magazines had failed to make it to my box before, I complained to the postal authorities and drove to my favorite source for periodicals I don’t subscribe to. No New Yorker there either. Or in several other stores.

There’d been a run on the Obama issue.

Fortunately, I was planning to attend a meeting at the Santa Fe public library that night. I’d go to the periodical section and check out the cover before the meeting. I found the niche where the New Yorker is normally stashed, opened the padded vinyl folder which usually holds the latest issue, and found----a note of apology! The Obama issue had been swiped from the library, too!

Obviously, though I enjoy sitting on my porch and reading books, magazines, newspapers, whatever, all was not lost. I could study the cartoon on line and also read the Ryan Lizza article about Obama’s negotiation of the Chicago political scene, and so can you. Meanwhile, that daring and controversial cartoon has been a major circulation and publicity coup for the New Yorker people.

It’s been good in other ways, too.

Wednesday New Camera Blogging

by Cheryl Rofer

Okay. Here are the first photos from my new camera.

Cactuses are the only plants I've found so far that are fully tolerant of my propensity to take my time about planting them. The three in the last photo have been there for a couple of months now, and this is the second time the Coryphanta vivipara has bloomed. It obviously likes it there. I have to consider the amount of light and shadow it's getting now when I plant it. I am developing a cactus garden enhanced by rocks I have found around New Mexico. It's not ready for photos yet.

As for the other plants I've acquired this spring, I've become much more conscientious, even planting some the same day I bought them.

I'm pleased with the camera, love the nine-point automatic focus. I'm still learning it, though...

Short Takes

by Cheryl Rofer

Um, does anyone recall what happened when Ambassador April Glaspie told Saddam Hussein that the US had "no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait"?

President George W Bush has told the Israeli government that he may be prepared to approve a future military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities if negotiations with Tehran break down, according to a senior Pentagon official.

...................

The six plotters who intended to use those famously mysterious liquid explosives are on trial in London.

Using a sealed 17-ounce sports drink, the men planned to drain the plastic bottle through a tiny hole in the bottom and then inject an explosive mix of concentrated hydrogen peroxide, along with food coloring to make it look like the original beverage. An instant glue would seal it shut. AA batteries filled with the explosive HMTD would serve as the detonator; a disposable camera would serve as the trigger.

I don't know whether the reporter has this right. If it's what the defendant(s) said, it still doesn't make sense. We can hope that at some time in the trial, the question of whether the plotters actually had a way to make explosives (it appears they never got to the making phase) or just thought that they did will be addressed. We can also hope that the reporters will be able to convey the discussion accurately.
.....................

The paranoid style in evaluating developments in North Korea. A lot of this op-ed is simply not true. The talks have not finished, so we don't know yet whether Kim Jong Il will "keep his stockpile of plutonium and even hang on to his existing rack of nuclear weapons." And we don't know yet whether he had a uranium enrichment program beyond some paper wishes. The author's basic gripe, beyond his fantasizing what is happening, seems to be that negotiations have resulted in some gains for North Korea in engaging the rest of the world.
......................

I suppose I should say something about Ken Salazar's WaPo op-ed on Colorado oil shale, seeing as I've worked on the stuff in a couple of different ways. Salazar should have seen it, so he should know that it's misleading to call it an "oily rock." It's tan and dry and doesn't even smell of oil, as does, say, the piece of Uvalde (Texas) tar sands I've got. But otherwise, he's got the situation pretty much right. The organic matter in oil shale is a precursor to petroleum, and it makes up only about 10% of the rock. There are better and worse techniques available for turning it into oil, but they either pile up the other 90% of the rock on the surface, or they process the stuff underground, endangering the water table. And no, the miracle of heat-at-a-distance that some think that microwaves (sometimes also referred to as radio waves) can provide will not be the answer, any more than it was in the 1970s. It's already appeared in a comment on Kevin Drum's post on the subject. Ugh.
.....................

And a couple of pretty good articles inspired by that New Yorker cover, in the Washington Post and the New York Times.

Update (7/16): A couple more articles on the New Yorker cover:
They Get It
What's so shocking about satire?

Housekeeping

Over the past couple of weeks, several comments have showed up that don't have much content, and the name of the commenter has linked to a commercial site. I have deleted these comments. They haven't added much to the discussion. I suspect that their only objective was to place the link.

But, on the other hand, they have had some relevance to the threads they were placed on.

So if the commenters were trying to advance the discussion, I apologize. If they were merely placing another round in the spam wars, I suggest they go elsewhere.

And, if you want to participate in the discussion at WhirledView, don't link your name to a commercial site.

Get Over It!

by Cheryl Rofer

Barack Obama has a clear and concise op-ed in the New York Times today on his Iraq policy. Nicely done, consistent with what he's said. Juan Cole disagrees with it only slightly, and I can't find serious fault with it. Clarifying his policy in the way after last week's dustup is something to be commended, too. We haven't had such a clarification from John McCain on his economic policies yet.

Meanwhile, the New Yorker has caused a flareup over a cartoon not seen since those Danish cartoons of Muslims. Nobody has threatened to kill anyone yet, so that's a good thing.

I think the cartoon is pretty funny, a sendup of all the negative stereotypes of Obama being promulgated via e-mail and rightwing blogs. Making Michelle into Angela Davis is a nice reminder that these identity squabbles (yes, I include you, Jesse Jackson!) are part of that old sixties meme that Obama is trying to transcend. And the fist-bump, I would think, signals to anyone of less than the full-up admirers of Jesse Helms that, hey, it's a joke! Even most of the rightwingers decided that fist-bumps are okay, at least as I read how that dustup came out.

Those who want to use the cover to decorate their dartboard are within their rights to do so, but I think they are not numerous, and, in any case, why should we allow their prejudices to dictate what the rest of us say.

Laughter is one of the best ways to defang the pretentiously prejudiced. So I suggest that those in Left Blogistan who find the cover offensive take a deep breath, walk around the block or play with your kid or dog, then laugh at the pretentiousness of "Up against the wall, m-----------!" Hopefully they'll be able to laugh at the overblown fears the New Yorker sends up, too.

Just Wondering

by Cheryl Rofer

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, like Bear Stearns, have been victims of a "run on the bank." The feds are going to step in to restore confidence.

The "run on the bank" is largely a psychological phenomenon. Investors don't want to be the last to get their money out, because if they're last, there won't be any money. But it's that very fear of being last to get out that causes the failure and the ruin of the last to get out. A self-fulfilling prophecy.

I won't claim to understand the economic fundamentals of any of those financial institutions, which may or may not have contributed to the fear.

But I can't help but wonder how much the fears that the Bush administration has used to manipulate the public have contributed to the easy spooking of the investors. Fear can become a habit.

The US Image Abroad and How It Can Be Fixed

By Patricia H. Kushlis

Note: Here follows the text of my speech for The League of Women Voters of Central New Mexico on Thursday, July 10, 2008. The numerous questions and comments that followed were every bit as good as my talk.

It’s a pleasure and an honor to be invited to speak to the League of Women Voters here in Albuquerque today. I want to thank Helen Wright, in particular, for asking me. I know the League has a long and honorable nonpartisan tradition in public service, in citizenship and especially in voter education. Your work is crucial in helping keep this country a democracy and, as we approach Elections 2008, it has never been more important than today.

I’m here to talk with you this noon about “The US Image Abroad – and How It Can Be Fixed.” My topic relates closely to the goals and activities of the League because the world has never been more interconnected. People abroad see the outcome of our November elections as important, if not vital, to their future welfare whether they live in Europe, Latin America, Asia or Africa. Lots of them wish they had the opportunity to cast their vote for our next president as well.

Here’s how I plan to structure my talk: 1) a review of how the US is currently seen abroad and why; 2) thoughts on how the situation can be changed; and 3) a few ideas on what the League in Central New Mexico can do to help make a difference. Finally, I’d like to leave time for your observations and questions at the end.

All the World’s a Stage: Perceptions of the US Abroad

In a recent article entitled “All the World’s a Stage” that introduced the results of this spring’s Pew Global Attitudes Project, an annual assessment conducted by the Pew Charitable Trusts, Andrew Kohut and Richard Wike, began as follows: “Simply put, America’s image in much of the Muslim world remains abysmal.”

Kohut is the president of the Pew Research Center and Director of its Global Attitudes Project. Wike is the project’s Associate Director.

Kohut and Wike tell us in this latest report issued in May 2008 that “between 2002 and 2007, the number of people with a favorable view of the United States fell in 26 countries of the 33 where . . . data is available.”

On the positive side, they report, however, that “in some Muslim nations, America’s image has rebounded slightly – in Jordan, for instance, the latest poll found that 20 percent of Jordanians held a positive view of the US – up from one percent in 2003 – two months after the start of the Iraq war and that in the Palestinian territories US favorability “climbed from less than one percent in 2003 to 13 percent in 2007. Those improvements, nevertheless, are nothing I would want to write home about to mother.

Moreover, favorability ratings of the US remain disturbingly low among many of our longtime European allies and they also dipped in Latin America. In Argentina, for instance, the US favorability rating is now at 16 percent and it’s very low in other parts of the non-Muslim world as well.

Why the dismal picture?

The Pew report tells us that many of the negatives relate to specific US foreign policies – in particular – the Iraq invasion and continuing US occupation of the country. The Iraq War not only solidified anti-Americanism in the Arab Middle East but it also extended it as far east as majority mainstream Muslim Indonesia and into Turkey, a US NATO ally, whose moderate Muslim population had been pro-American prior to 2003. Today, Indonesia shows a 29 percent favorable rating. Turkey comes in at nine percent, the bottom of all 47 countries surveyed this year - below even the Palestinian territories.

But many negative views of the US this year for the first time -and particularly across the Muslim world - extend beyond Iraq to the continuation of US and NATO military bases and actions in Afghanistan. Many Muslims think – including those surveyed in Western Europe – that the US is overreacting to international terrorism.

They have a point: like it or not, far more acts of terrorism are committed in the name of Islam by Muslims against other Muslims than against any other group or country. Furthermore, many groups that use terrorism are not Muslim at all. A few examples: the FARC in Colombia, our own Oklahoma City bombers, the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka (who initiated the modern suicide-bomber), November 17 in Greece and the one I know best because it was active when I worked there – and the IRA, prior to the Irish Peace Accords.

Meanwhile, 60 percent of the mainstream Muslims surveyed by Pew worry that US military strength “might someday be directed at them.” This fear is particularly prevalent (76 percent) in Turkey. Many Muslims – including those in Turkey - do not trust US explanations for the “war on terror.” Finally, American power is deeply resented across the globe – but especially in Muslim countries.

US policies towards Israel are also a major irritant, not only among Muslims, but also among non-Muslim Europeans. Even in Israel, 42 percent of the Israelis polled think the US favors their country too much.

Now I want to draw a distinction between dislike for US government policies and for American citizens – like you and me. There, the record is not so dismal. In 14 of 23 countries polled by Pew, Americans as people are popular in Canada, the UK, Italy, France, Japan and Germany (in that order of descending popularity). We are not, however, particularly well received in Mexico, China and Spain. Although in all 47 countries surveyed, American citizens are seen more favorably than US foreign policies.

What can be done to improve the situation?

It’s not fun to occupy the position of the world’s most “hated nation.” The good news is that it doesn’t have to be that way. Turning the situation around, however, will not be easy, and as long as the US “remains the world’s dominant power, there will always be fear of our intentions and actions.” But a lot can be done – and our next president – who ever he is – will have that, among other, Herculean tasks in front of him.

There will be a grace period for either John McCain or Barak Obama in terms of world public opinion. Although as recent polls in France and elsewhere in Europe have indicated, Obama holds European hearts and minds in ways McCain does not. I think, however, either will be given a period of time – perhaps six months to a year to begin to turn US foreign policies – around.

A few suggestions for change