June 2013 – Page 94

Turkey’s Broken “Model”

When it comes to Washington’s stance toward the increasingly authoritarian Erdogan government, Steven A. Cook and Michael Koplow point out the divide between hope and reality:

In the midst of the endless volley of teargas against protesters in Taksim, one of the prime minister’s advisors plaintively asked, “How can a government that received almost 50 percent of the vote be authoritarian?” This perfectly captures the more recent dynamic of Erdogan’s Turkey, where the government uses its growing margins of victory in elections to justify all sorts of actions that run up against large reservoirs of opposition. … Turkey’s anti-democratic turn has all taken place without much notice from the outside world. It was not just coercive measures — arrests, investigations, tax fines, and imprisonments — that Washington willfully overlooked in favor of a sunnier narrative about the “Turkish miracle.” Perhaps it is not as clear, but over the last decade the AKP has built an informal, powerful, coalition of party-affiliated businessmen and media outlets whose livelihoods depend on the political order that Erdogan is constructing. Those who resist do so at their own risk.

They argue that while the current protests will likely lead to much needed change for Turkey’s troubled democracy, the US must pursue a new approach as well:

Perhaps the Obama administration does not care about Turkey’s reversion or has deemed it better to counsel, cajole, and encourage Erdogan privately and through quiet acts of defiance like extending the term of Amb. Francis Ricciardone, who has gotten under the government’s skin over press freedom, for another year. This long game has not worked. It is time the White House realized that Erdogan’s rhetoric on democracy has far outstripped reality. Turkey has less to offer the Arab world than the Obama administration appears to think, and rather than just urging Arab governments to pay attention to the demands of their citizens, Washington might want to urge its friends in Ankara to do the same as well.

Claire Sadar distinguishes the Turkish protests from the movements that made up the Arab Spring:

Despite the fact that many are making the easy (and inaccurate) comparison between the Occupy Gezi movement and the protest movements that brought on the Arab Spring, in all likelyhood this movement will not birth a full out revolution. Unlike the Arab Spring countries, Turkey is a democracy. The importance of this cannot be overstated. … [T]he popularity of Erdogan and the AKP will certainly take a hit but when it comes down to the line, I am willing to bet that Turkey would rather go with the devil it knows (and elected) over the devil it doesn’t know. However, Erdogan’s ability to guide the creation of a new constitution, already compromised, is likely lost and with it his dream of becoming Turkey’s first American style president.

David Gardner stresses [FT] the increasing self-isolation among the AKP:

Part of this drama is the paradox that Mr Erdogan and the AKP, politically paramount but paranoid about plots against them, behave as though they were still the opposition – with the difference that the feedback loop of this normally well-oiled political machine has been short-circuited by sycophants. Before first winning power in October 2002, the AKP spent 22 months interviewing in depth 41,000 people across the country. Now, even allies admit, Mr Erdogan listens mostly to himself.

The Dish’s coverage of Turkey from over the weekend here, here and here.

(Photo: A man walks by makeshift barricades near Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s office on June 3, 2013 in Istanbul, Turkey. By Uriel Sinai/Getty Images)

Is Monogamy A “Ticking Time Bomb”?

That’s just one of many highly charged topics that Dan Savage took on in a conversation with yours truly last week. Full video of the conversation here. One reader’s review:

Probably the most human, caring and frank conversation I’ve listened to in the last few years. Enough to stop me and revisit my own default settings. Brilliant. Thank you.

Just wait for the podcast.

After Earth And Hollywood’s Pathologies

So not only is After Earth a terrible Smith-family vanity project and a box-office flop, its story was inspired by the Super Adventure Club? Matt Patches says yes:

After Earth is essentially a map of Scientological development. It’s a man-vs.-nature story because Scientology suggests that all of life is just that. Before Kitai is set on his journey of personal discovery, he trains to be a Ranger (like his father) in the fashion of Scientology students. Smith’s New Village Leadership Academy is said to employ the techniques of “Study Tech,” a Hubbard concept that focuses on climbing the ladder. Kitai’s biggest woe is that he can’t reach the next level of military school. That’s par for the course in Scientology, where learning is described as a gradient, “a gradual approach to something, taken step by step, so that, finally, quite complicated and difficult activities or concepts can be achieved with relative ease.” It’s one of the parts of Scientology that many have focused on — the idea of having to pay for classes in order to advance upwards through the religion’s levels. Some critics have compared After Earth‘s structure as being like that of a video game, Kitai going from level to level. That’s really Study Tech. …

With After Earth‘s Scientology roots in mind, every element starts to ring familiar in the context of the religion. The threatening alien, turned murderous by the scent of emotion, is a literalization of the organization’s hard stance against psychiatric medicine.

For me, the volcano was the give-away. But the movie combines the two elements worth despising in Hollywood – nepotism and the cult of the Super Adventure Club. Rich Juzwiak, however, talks to a Scientology expert who didn’t recognize any such subtext in the film.

Ask Fareed Zakaria Anything

This embed is invalid

[Re-posted from earlier today with many questions added by readers]

From Fareed’s Wiki page:

Fareed Rafiq Zakaria is an Indian-American journalist and author. From 2000 to 2010, he was a columnist for Newsweek and editor of Newsweek International. In 2010 he became editor-at-large of Time. He is the host of CNN’s Fareed Zakaria GPS. He is also a frequent commentator and author about issues related to international relations, trade, and American foreign policy. Zakaria wrote The Future of Freedom (Norton, 2003) and The Post-American World (2008); he has also co-edited The American Encounter: The United States and the Making of the Modern World (Basic Books).

To submit a question for Fareed, simply enter it into the Urtak survey after answering all of the existing questions (ignore the “YES or NO question” aspect and simply enter any open-ended question). To vote, click “Yes” if you have a strong interest in seeing Fareed answer the question or “No” if you don’t particularly care.

A War The American People Don’t Want

Military intervention in Syria remains unpopular:

Sixty-eight percent of Americans say the United States should not use military action in Syria to attempt to end the civil war there if diplomatic and economic efforts fail, while 24% would favor U.S. military involvement.

More to the point, 64 percent of Republicans oppose war there. This is a rare issue which unites far right, center and left. (There is no “right” in the US right now – just pseudo-conservative extremists). Allahpundit adds more context:

The -44 split on intervention is, I believe, the widest gap in any poll taken on this subject, a sign perhaps that the public’s trending away from action in Syria as the McCain-ians beat the Do Something drum more loudly. If you look at the numbers over time at Polling Report, though, you’ll see that when pollsters mention Assad using chemical weapons, the numbers look different.

A Pew poll taken last month found a 45/31 split on whether the U.S. should act militarily if chemical attacks by the regime are confirmed; two weeks ago, CNN got a 66/30 split on basically the same question. There are news reports published as recently as yesterday that Assad’s begun to use chemical weapons more frequently due to the west’s inaction over previous attacks. If Obama does end up deciding that it’s time for a no-fly zone, expect him to hammer the WMD point heavily as a way of building popular support. Realistically, it’s the only way he can sell intervention to the public.

The use of chemical weapons is, of course, horrifying. But the only way in which it affects the US directly is if the weapons eventually arrive here. And the fastest way to achieve that is to take sides in a war that is part of a regional Sunni-Shia conflict in which, in my opinion, the US should have no interest at all. These are forces we cannot fully understand, let alone control. We cannot be callous, but we have to be realistic. And the only realistic policy is to stay the fuck away. That’s why, as Larison argues, the Rand Paul foreign policy may begin to have the power to undermine the war-mongers in the GOP camp:

Even among Republicans, support for military action is an anemic 31%. When the Menendez-Corker bill approving funding for arming the Syrian opposition came up for a vote in committee earlier this month, Paul was the only Republican to vote against the bill, and to date he has been the only member of his party in the Senate to reject any greater U.S. involvement in the conflict. At the moment, he appears to be the only Republican in the Senate taking the side in the Syria debate that is favored by the vast majority of Americans and most Republicans. He is betting that his dissents from the party’s reflexive hawkishness are some of what will appeal to most Americans, and that “muscular positions” on foreign policy are exactly what most of us want Republican politicians to abandon.

A Female Doctor??

Way overdue – who said Time Lords have to have willies? But Helen Mirren? My heart just skipped a little.

Update from a reader:

If Helen Mirren is tapped to replace Matt Smith as The Doctor, it would be his first incarnation as a woman, but she’d hardly be the first female Time Lord … to name just a few: Councillor Flavia, Inquisitor Prime Darkel, and — how can you forget — Romana.

How can I forget indeed? So long as no one is called a Time Lady, I’ll be happy.

Is Cannabis The Civil Rights Issue Of Our Time?

Bill Maher compares marijuana legalization to marriage equality:

Meanwhile, Colorado is making progress on regulations for legal marijuana:

The regulations in House Bill 1317 would require marijuana retail outlets to license with the state and for the first nine months, only currently operating medical marijuana dispensaries can apply. Owners must also be Colorado residents. Initially, these stores must sell marijuana that they cultivated themselves, but by October 2014 this restriction will be lifted to allow independent growers and retail outlets. State residents will be able to purchase up to one ounce of usable marijuana at a time, while out of state visitors will be capped at one quarter ounce per purchase. Possession of up to one ounce of marijuana would be legalized for everyone over the age of 21, regardless of residency.

Washington state is also figuring out regulatory details:

Licenses will be handed out in three main categories—producer, processor and retailer—for a fee of $1,000. High, say some. Retail outlets will be limited and marijuana may only be grown in secure, indoor facilities. Background checks for the licenses, including fingerprinting, will aim to weed out unsavoury types. Residency and record-keeping requirements are designed to keep the pot business in-state.

Some of the draft rules seem draconian, but it is important that Washington get this right. Congress is closely watching state experiments with pot legalisation, the success of which would blunt criticism from moralistic lawmakers.

One early consequence of legalized marijuana in Washington? The drugs dogs need to be retrained.

They Died For … China?

In case the Iraq war was not catastrophe enough, we now know what the trillion dollars and thousands of US casualties and injuries and tens of thousands of sectarian deaths were for. One dumb superpower went to war for one rising superpower smart enough never to get engaged at all:

“The Chinese are the biggest beneficiary of this post-Saddam oil boom in Iraq,” said Denise Natali, a Middle East expert at the National Defense University in Washington. “They need energy, and they want to get into the market.”

Before the invasion, Iraq’s oil industry was sputtering, largely walled off from world markets by international sanctions against the government of Saddam Hussein, so his overthrow always carried the promise of renewed access to the country’s immense reserves. Chinese state-owned companies seized the opportunity, pouring more than $2 billion a year and hundreds of workers into Iraq, and just as important, showing a willingness to play by the new Iraqi government’s rules and to accept lower profits to win contracts.

“We lost out,” said Michael Makovsky, a former Defense Department official in the Bush administration who worked on Iraq oil policy. “The Chinese had nothing to do with the war, but from an economic standpoint they are benefiting from it, and our Fifth Fleet and air forces are helping to assure their supply.”

Of course, this extra oil production may be a good thing. It could bribe Iraqis into not massacring each other, as they seem preternaturally eager to do (a thousand Iraqis were killed in sectarian attacks last month alone). It will almost certainly lower oil prices globally. But notice what this war for democracy and against sectarianism has achieved. We now have a Shiite authoritarian still engaged in sectarian warfare along the old Sunni-Shiite lines, and a Sunni insurgency with less and less stake in the government (sorry, general Petraeus, your surge was a brilliant Washington p.r. campaign but achieved none of its goals, except helping us get out of that hell-hole).

And now we have an authoritarian Shiite government doing huge deals with the authoritarian Chinese government, whose state-directed companies can offer terms no Western oil company, answerable to share-holders, can match. So, in the end, the war promoted the interests of authoritarianism, Iran and China.

How and when will George W Bush and Dick Cheney look the families and friends of dead service-members in the eye and tell them the truth about what their beloved sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers fought and died for?

(Photo: Headstones are reflected in a photograph that is leaning against the headstone for Iraq war casualty U.S. Army Master Sgt. Tulsa Tulaga Tuliau on the 10th anniversary of the beginning of the war in Iraq at Arlington National Cemetery March 19, 2013 in Arlington, Virginia. Tuliau was killed when an improvised explosive device detonated near his Humvee during combat operations near Rustimayah, Iraq September 26, 2005. By Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images.)

The Inferior Medium?

Liel Leibovitz, who admits to not being much of a TV watcher, argues that as good as the medium has gotten, it “does not now, nor will it ever, meet the same sublime depths explored by the great novels. It is, quite simply, essentially inferior”:

In television narrative, any television narrative, the commandments are few and simple: Something must always be happening, for otherwise there would be little reason to tune in next week; and whatever’s happening must happen on screen, for this is a visual medium, and a shot of Walter White brooding in his kitchen isn’t quite as gratifying as a shot of Walter White shooting some guy in the head. Our new technologies, and the gluttonous viewing habits they’ve created, have given the medium some more room to play, to build, as it were, character. But the primary principles still apply: To keep us amused, a show, any show, has to parade a quick succession of spectacles, far exceeding the scope of thrills and woes that befall any ordinary or extraordinary person in real life. That’s the nature of entertainment.

He’s so wrong. And he’s crazy to pick an example like “Breaking Bad.” Watching the evolution of the central character of Walter White – and those around him – as he sinks deeper and deeper into the easy evil, has been a character study equal to any novel, or even Shakespearean drama. And what makes this show so great is precisely its ability to slow down, to show character in grainy detail, to watch human faces and bodies change, to observe the subtly changing dynamics between, say, Walter and his son. There is silence in that series, just as there is immense psychological complexity. I’m as riveted by the characters as I would be in any novel, and then entranced by the cinematographic elegance and nuance.

Mr Leibovitz needs to watch more great TV. But if he failed to appreciate Breaking Bad, what hope is there for him?

Do Mascots Need Modernizing? Ctd

A reader writes:

I have to agree with Doug Mataconis; why does Congress need to be involved here? Moreover, how many people upon hearing the word “Redskin” conjure up negative stereotypical images of Native Americans? I’d have to think maybe 1 out of 10 thinks of Native Americans instead of football players.

But where would this political correctness end? Are the Atlanta Braves next? What about the Florida State Seminoles? Does it matter that the Seminole Tribe of Florida wants the college to keep the mascot? Or how about this one: I went to the College of the Holy Cross and we are called “The Crusaders?” Any members of Congress calling for us to change our name given what went on during the Crusades?

Words have meaning, and over time those meanings change. Why can’t the stigma be removed from a word as society matures and learns to use words for purposes other than demeaning others?

Another has a very different perspective:

Being a Comanche and Caddo Indian from Oklahoma, I have much gratitude for the actions of Tom Cole and the other members of Congress. They are doing one of the most important duties our elected representatives have: being a voice for their constituents, even those who don’t wield much political or economic power.

Unfortunately, Doug Mataconis is right.

The Washington NFL team will never get rid of their mascot unless there is a monetary detriment to not doing so. Making money on the backs of a voiceless minority is prevalent and acceptable in American society. However, this IS something that Congress has the right and even moral imperative to pursue. The government has always placed monetary incentives and detriments to businesses so that they might more align with the pervading government philosophy. It may not have an effect in the short run, but it begins the “bending of the arc of history” that eventually can lead to real change. Mataconis’ allusion to this being a “private business matter” is the same argument private businesses used to not serve any black patrons. It’s a wrong-headed and antiquated, if not racist, school of thought.

Only an ultra-elite athlete taking a stand to not play for a team with a disparaging mascot would make any waves with these owners. I fantasized that Sam Bradford (1/16th Cherokee), who was the #1 pick in the 2010 NFL Draft, would publicly take a stand and speak out against the Washington Redskins and the Kansas City Chiefs. Both those teams would mostly likely have chosen Bradford had they had the chance (they chose fourth and fifth in that draft, respectively). Until something like that happens, it’s up to our government to do the right thing.