Month: October 2007

A reader writes:

I have to seriously take issue with the anti-Obama sentiment expressed by some of your black readers. I myself am black and college educated, but what I want to ask them is…what is it that you see in Hillary that makes her more substantial than Obama? That she’s a senator? What’s Obama? That she got shelled by the Right for a number of real or imagined sins and lived to fight another day? Is it that she’s been First Lady (or is that she’s married to the unofficial "first black president")? I have no problems with Hillary, and I like Bill quite a bit (and I’m not blind to his personal failings) and I fully agree that blacks shouldn’t vote for Obama just because he’s black, but at the same time, how does one come to the conclusion that Obama is, "NOT a serious person"? I didn’t know that a former editor of the Harvard Law Review was lacking in substance or "seriousness" (which is one of the most arbitrary characteristics in our political discourse at the moment anyway, but that’s another matter). It is troubling to me that some would still hold up Colin Powell as "serious" when he went against his own judgment and helped deliver the Bush Administration the war it so very wanted with his U.N. presentation. However, Obama, a man who called what was to come with crystal clear accuracy back when speaking ill of the war was being equated to treason, is not serious. Speaking unpleasant truth to power is serious. Having the courage of your convictions is serious.

The e-mailer goes on to write:

"By the way what major policy reform has Obama proposed anyway? If he is really incensed about Iraq, why doesn’t he stage a filibuster? Has he not watched "Mr Smith Goes to Washington." Hillary might be a closet conservative, but at least she is not pretending that she is the only Ivy league educated woman in America."

This is a specious argument at best. Obama, if anyone would care to look, has being doing great work on non-proliferation (are loose nukes "not serious"?) , he just released a very good environmental plan, and his health plan, while perhaps not as robust as Edwards’ or Hillary’s (do people think "Hillarycare is going to get an easy pass this time around?), is still good and would help a large swath of the population. Furthermore, to me at least,  Obama isn’t trumpeting his degrees in some effort to try to make similar black folk jealous or the like (or to be condescending, which is the feeling I get from that particular e-mail); rather, I think it helps young black Americans to see a black man, committed to his wife and family with degrees from top American institutions of higher learning actually being considered for president. It might show more of our youth that, yes, they can come from humble beginnings and still do great things.

And the filibuster? He can’t stand up there day after day by himself. The DEMOCRATS need to get together to end the Iraq War and stop getting scared every time the "stab in the back" machine gets revved up. Centrist Democrats (like a certain female running for president, ahem) can’t have it both ways; they need to make a choice and stick by it. Fence sitting (or lacking the courage to stake out your ground on an issue ) is not serious.

And, finally, Ron Paul is "serious"? Google search on "Ron Paul + racist" and get back to me.

"Who Else Should Al Gore Share the Prize With? How about that well known peace campaigner Osama Bin Laden, who implicitly endorsed Gore’s stance – and that of the Nobel committee – in his September rant from the cave?" – Iain Murray, National Review.

I can’t say I read him very often but I came across this chilling post of his from last week. It’s an attack on any independent thought outside of the situational demands of a political coalition. It is a full-throated and not-even-regretful support for the subjugation of free inquiry and free ideas to the demands of political organization. It makes Sidney Blumenthal seem intellectually honest. Money quote:

Roger Cohen may feel like he is a liberal hawk, and thus distinct. But what Roger Cohen feels does not matter, because Roger Cohen does not control any branch of the American military. Who he empowers, and which actors in American politics find their ideas legitimized by his columns, is all that matters. And in that, he is worse than a neoconservative. He’s a liberal hawk who knows better, but whose interest in writing about his own virtue overwhelms his judgments concerning the actual actions of those who wield power. He is not a neoconservative. He is a narcissist.

Klein slips in a bogus word here: feels. Cohen doesn’t feel he is a liberal hawk; he believes he is. He has arguments to make, arguments that can be agreed with or disagreed with, but that have merits of their own that should be addressed regardless of the arrangement of political power at the time. This isn’t narcissism; it is the duty of any writer and thinker to state his own views as best he can without concern for how the world might greet them, who might use them unfairly, or who might expropriate them for insincere purposes. Without this independence, a writer is merely a hack. Or, worse for a writer, an activist.

The right has its apparatchiks. The left does too. And when you are as young and as able as Klein and have already sacrificed even an attempt to think for yourself in favor of the demands of party and faction … well, it’s just really, really depressing. But he is not alone, as any perusal of many writers for National Review, Red State or HuffPuff and Kos will see.

Have I irritated enough Democrats today? Here are a couple of dyspeptic splutters on Gore’s Nobel – Jim Henley and Damian Thompson. I admire Gore in many ways – especially his knowledge of science and his concern with civil liberties. But he’s also insufferable. And can you imagine how more pompous he’s going to be now?

He loves it – almost as much as he loves exercizing unchecked, unaccountable executive power. From the Council on Foreign Relations:

The "state secrets" privilege allows the sitting U.S. president to nearly unilaterally withhold documents from the courts, Congress and the public.  At the height of the Cold War, the administration used the privilege only 6 times between 1953 and 1976. Since 2001, it has been used a reported 39 times….

A reader writes:

Why do you see it as some sort of hostility if an African-American decides not to endorse Obama? This is actually the subtle form of racism we still have to go through daily. All Blacks in their right mind have to go for the Black in the race. Do you have the same standards for any other group or any other race? Moreover, your little question if Bill got to him is as insulting as it gets. You mean an adult Black man cannot make a decision on his own? At least Bill O’Reilly ‘recognized’ a couple of days ago that "Blacks are starting to think for themselves". But I see we still have a long way to go.

John Lewis is a titan of the civil rights movement. Of course he can think for himself. But the Clintons still ruthelessly pressure those they can. And an endorsement at this stage from a man of Lewis’s stature is more than an endorsement of Clinton. It’s a racial body-blow to Obama. And it’s not racist to recognize that. One of the more fascinating aspects of this race is the reluctance of so many African-Americans to support the most plausible black candidate for president in history.
 

Matt Yglesias worries about Michael Rubin’s joining the Giuliani campaign. David Frum joined up too, we’re told. Those who believe neoconservatism is dead are not paying attention. If Giuliani is elected, Bush will begin to look like a realist. And your civil liberties will be over.

A reader writes:

I’m confident that you’ll hear from many on this, but I must take issue with today’s “The View From Your Window” picture listing Har Homa: (a) as a settlement; (b) in "Palestine."  My objections are as follows: 1) "Palestine": Currently there is no State of Palestine.  The name of the territory administered by the Palestinian Authority is the "Palestinian Territories," not Palestine.  So even if I was to concede (and I don’t; see #2 below) that Har Homa was not in Jerusalem, Israel, it would be in the Palestinian Territories, not a State of Palestine.

2) “Settlement”:  While certainly there are settlements in the West Bank (such as Ariel, Beit El, Efrat, etc.), Har Homa is not one of them.  Its 460 acres is entirely within the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem.

Therefore it is not a “settlement,” but a neighborhood of Jerusalem. It is true that Har Homa was built upon the part of Jerusalem that was ruled by Jordan until 1967; however, these parts of Jerusalem have been annexed by Israel (in contrast to the West Bank, which has not been annexed).  Other such parts of Jerusalem include the Western Wall and the Jewish Quarter of the Old City.  By designating Har Homa a settlement in “Palestine,” you by default also designate the Western Wall and the Jewish Quarter as “settlements” in “Palestine.”

It should also be noted that Har Homa is not in Arab East Jerusalem (it is rather in Southern Jerusalem) and that is not built upon formerly Arab-owned land. Rather most of the land was expropriated from Jews to build the neighborhood.  No homeowners, Jewish or Arab, were displaced by construction.  Also, construction was approved by Shimon Peres, hardly a hawkish figure in Israeli politics!  Finally, during construction, the U.S. repeatedly vetoed United Nations resolutions calling for a halt to construction.

One final note:  I do not believe that that this picture is even the view from anyone’s window in the first place.  It appears to be a picture of the neighborhood from afar (either from a point in the Judean desert for from the outskirts of Bethlehem, I guess) and not from anyone’s window.  My hunch is that someone submitted this picture, with the designations “settlement” and “Palestine” to make a political point.

Hugh Hewitt’s stand-in bids farewell. He’s headed to the Weekly Standard. I’ll miss him, although my seriousness in this respect is questionable.