Blog

Neglecting Freedom Abroad

Sun, 4 Jul 2010 21:18:30 -0400

Three weeks ago, Egyptian police brutally beat a young political activist to death outside of an Internet café in Alexandria, Egypt. The activist, Khaled Said, had stoked the officers’ ire by obtaining a video that showed police officers selling drugs.
Within days, photos depicting Said’s mangled corpse were circulated via e-mail and Facebook throughout the country, causing an uproar. A major protest was held in Alexandria, drawing approximately 3,000 individuals, while smaller protests were held around the country. Most notably, Mohammed ElBaradei, the former International Atomic Energy director widely expected to run for president in 2011, joined the demonstrators.
Yet the Egyptian regime held firm. It surrounded the protests with soldiers. It arrested demonstrators at the smaller protests, and sentenced one organizer to six months in prison. The Ministry of the Interior then released an official report of Said’s death, claiming – incredibly, and in contrast to multiple eye-witness testimonies – that he had choked on a bag of drugs. And when activists protested the government-run newspaper al-Gomhuria for “defending the government blindly,” al-Gomhuria ran a front-page headline accusing them of “attempted terrorism.” Indeed, in the twisted logic of authoritarianism, protests against violence equal violence.
This is what non-democratic, unfree rule looks like: sporadically violent and constantly in denial. So on July 4th in Egypt, I am thankful for my freedom (as well as my blue, eagle-embossed passport), in part because I have observed life without it.
To be sure, had our forefathers been too afraid to sign the Declaration of Independence 234 years ago, America would have probably been freer than Egypt. King George III was a tyrant, but he was no Hosni Mubarak. (Yes, I’ll take the sugar tax over Egypt’s emergency laws any day.)
But precisely because our forefathers signed the Declaration, America remains the most potent symbol of freedom in the world. Even in Egypt, where people never miss an opportunity to criticize American foreign policy, they routinely praise America’s system of government. For pro-democracy activists in particular, the American example has long been a source of inspiration.
That, however, may be changing. Indeed, President Obama finds even this kind of American exceptionalism too particularistic, too jingoistic, and too Bush. So he has replaced inspiration with what he calls “realism”: hugs before human rights in Venezuela; climate change before human rights in China; and budget-cutting before human rights in Iran (and only Iran).
Meanwhile, others are picking up the slack. Last week, European Union ambassadors issued a joint statement expressing their concern over Khaled Said’s death and, on Saturday, the Egyptian regime finally responded by sending two policemen to trial on torture charges. As usual, the Obama administration has kept to the sidelines, denying any contact with the Egyptian government regarding this issue.
On this July 4th, we can do better. We always have.

Blog post and comments available on Frum Forum here.

Palin at Fox Will Blur the Line Between News Analysis and Politicking

Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:52:19 -0500

The news that Sarah Palin will be joining Fox News Channel as a contributor is the latest indication that the line between news analysis and outright politicking is under attack.
To be sure, Palin is hardly the first politician to pose as a newsman: Mike Huckabee has his own (terrible) weekly program on Fox News, and Newt Gingrich and Harold Ford, Jr. are contributors on Fox News and MSNBC, respectively. Meanwhile, the networks are chock-full of media personalities with known political ambitions: MSNBC host Chris Matthews recently considered running for Senate from Pennsylvania; former CNN host Lou Dobbs is considering a presidential run; and MSNBC's Ed Schultz is contemplating a Senate run from North Dakota. Throw in regular columns by Rick Santorum in The Philadelphia Inquirer and Eliot Spitzer in Slate, and the distinction between the soapbox and news desk becomes even fuzzier.
This trend should be deeply worrisome to anyone who believes in the importance of a free press to a functioning democracy. After all, the press' key democratic function is to serve as a check on our leaders: to ask them hard questions, expose their scandals, and keep the public informed on their successes and failures. The media's ability to perform these tasks becomes seriously constrained when actual or prospective politicians join its ranks. Indeed, it becomes impossible to know whether a story is being run on The Ed Show because it is newsworthy, or because it is useful to Ed Schultz's political prospects. Similarly, it will be hard to know whether Sarah Palin's Fox News commentary represents her actual political insights, or whether she has tempered those insights so as to undermine potential challengers or curry favor with supporters.
Still, the worst consequence of this marriage between news production and politicking could occur off-camera: it would seem that networks are less likely to report critically on the politicians that they hire. In turn, it becomes fair to question the integrity of Fox News' coverage of the forthcoming presidential elections, since at least three potential Republican nominees are now on its payroll.

Blog post and comments available on The Huffington Post here.

Abusing Statistics to Justify Dawson's Hall of Fame Induction

Fri, 8 Jan 2010 22:56:26 -0500

In the aftermath of Andre Dawson's somewhat surprising induction into the Baseball Hall of Fame, baseball writers are struggling to demonstrate the Hawk's greatness. In this vein, a photo caption on Sports Illustrated's website noted: "Andre Dawson, Willie Mays and Barry Bonds are the only players with 400 homeruns and 300 steals in their career."
This reflects baseball writers' standard strategy for bestowing legendary status upon decent players: search for a few arbitrary statistical thresholds that the player and a few other all-time greats surpassed -- and then insist on the relevance of these thresholds in placing the player among elite company that he wouldn't otherwise deserve.
A few observations:
1. This is the first time I've ever heard "300 steals" considered as an important statistical plateau. But if it is now an important plateau, then the quickly dismissed HOF candidacies of Luis Polonia (321) and Gary Pettis (354) should be reconsidered.
2. Dawson had significantly fewer homeruns (438) than either Mays (660) and Bonds (762). He also had the fewest steals of the three: he's only 24 behind Mays, but 200 behind Bonds. So this whole 400/300 statistic is even more misleading than it initially seemed.
3. In the 20th century, only two players have pitched at least 700 innings while also collecting over 900 hits: Babe Ruth and Johnny Cooney (Who?).
How has the Veteran's Committee overlooked Cooney for so long -- especially when every other member of the exclusive 700/900 club has been inducted?

Blog post and comments available on The Huffington Post here.

CODEPINK's "Gaza Freedom" Mockery

Wed, 30 Dec 2009 17:25:15 -0500

If you've been following CODEPINK's so-called "Gaza Freedom March" on the blogosphere, then you probably know what it is against.
First and foremost, it is against the "siege of Gaza." We don't know whether it was similarly against the thousands of rockets that Hamas fired onto Israeli civilians that preceded this "siege," but we are left to assume CODEPINK's indifference -- because, as its most erstwhile participants have indicated, the "Freedom" marchers are overwhelmingly against Israel's very existence.   So, no, the "Freedom" marchers don't support U.S.-led efforts at forging a two-state solution because -- surprise, surprise! -- they are also against U.S. foreign policy. Indeed, on Monday, the marchers protested in front of the American embassy in downtown Cairo. Of course, they are hardly the first people to protest against the U.S. in Egypt's capital -- but they are probably the first to spend over $1000 on plane tickets to do so.
And now that the Egyptian government is blocking CODEPINK from traveling to Gaza, guess what? They're against the Egyptian government, too. Of course, you never heard from CODEPINK when the Egyptian government was imprisoning opposition leaders, beating bloggers, or televising bigoted programming. That's because CODEPINK's leaders only get angry when autocracy impinges on them. (Check out CODEPINK founder Medea Benjamin's insane paean to Hugo Chavez!)
But now that these marchers have given Stephen Walt grist for another conspiracy theory (who do you think is preventing this story from making it into American papers? ... whoops), it's worth asking: what are they for? Is CODEPINK for Hamas using the tunnels that run from Gaza into Egypt for stockpiling anti-aircraft missiles and longer-range rockets, rather than importing food and medicinal supplies? Are its activists for Hamas being strengthened once Israel opens the borders? If this yields renewed Hamas attacks against Israel, will the activists finally be for Israel's self-defense? Will these "Freedom" marchers declare that they are for Gazans' freedom from Hamas' imposition of strict Islamist codes; or for a Gazan government that develops its economy, rather than its arsenal; or for a Palestinian government that -- if nothing else -- holds its "democratic" elections on time?
Naturally, these questions are entirely beside the point. That's because CODEPINK's goals have nothing to do with actual Palestinian freedom. Indeed, whether CODEPINK is disrupting a Senate hearing or demonstrating in Cairo, its purpose is the same: to vilify American foreign policy and, in this case, one of America's most important allies in the Middle East. If CODEPINK really sought to promote peace, then it would have marched in solidarity with the traumatized residents of Sderot a long, long time ago. If the "Freedom" marchers truly cared about the future of Gaza, they would have donated the thousands of dollars that they spent on plane tickets towards one of the many reputable charities that assist Palestinians. And if they had any interest in seeing progress in ending this decades-old conflict, then they would have gathered in favor of something, rather than in opposition to everything.
But they didn't. So they're now wandering aimlessly around Cairo; complaining to their allies over e-mail; wearing pink; and looking ridiculous.

Blog post and comments available on The Huffington Post here.

One Man's Adventure in a Women's Clothing Store

Wed, 23 Dec 2009 17:20:51 -0500

I've worn a Boston Red Sox cap to Yankee Stadium. I've campaigned for Republican candidates in Philadelphia. And I've entered Israel with a Syrian stamp on my passport. But nothing could have prepared me for the scrutiny I faced when I walked into an Ann Taylor Loft to buy holiday gifts for my wife and mother.
Immediately, skeptical eyes confronted me. "Sir, can I help you? Do you know what you're looking for?"
Naturally, the first question made me feel welcome. But the condescension of the second question made me wonder whether - despite being a spry 26 year-old - I looked like a confused 90-something.
"Er, I'm looking for holiday gifts for my wife and mother."
"What color hair do they have?"
This rattled me a bit. Was I supposed to consider my wife and mother's respective hair colors when picking out sweaters for them? And, by having never done so in the past, had I been failing at gift-giving for my entire life?
"My wife is a blonde and my mom's a brunette," I said. "What do you recommend?"
I was starting to despair. But the attendant reassured me. "Hold on a minute. I'll check in the back." As she walked away, I started combing through a nearby blouse rack.
"Hi. Can I help you?" It was a different saleswoman. "Are you finding everything you're looking for?"
What was I looking for? Oh, right, gifts. But was I wasting my time looking at ruffled tops for two women of opposite hair colors? What about pinstripes? Can blond-haired women wear pinstripes? I was totally lost. And The Back had apparently swallowed the previous attendant.
"I'm looking for gifts for my mother and wife," I said.
"What do they look like?"
"My mother is a brunette, and my wife is a blonde."
"No, I mean what size are they?"
Finally - a question with implications that I understood completely! "They're both extra-small," I said self-assuredly. "I'm okay. I'm just going to look around."
And so I did.
"Are you okay, sir? Can I help you find anything?" It was yet another saleswoman.
"How do you think these work for my mother? She's in her fifties," I said, holding up a violet cardigan alongside a white, long-sleeved blouse.
"Well, what kind of figure does she have?"
"Um, she's thin."
"No, I mean is she big-chested?"
My heart stopped. Was I really being asked to comment on my mother's ... ?   "Why does it matter?" I asked, praying for an escape.
"Because this shirt might show cleavage, and women in their fifties occasionally feel uncomfortable with that."
After initially grossing me out, this saleswoman was actually giving me some useful information. So she showed me some other blouse options and, after a thorough tour of the store, left me to my own devices. Twenty minutes later, I'd picked out two different cardigan-and-blouse sets for my wife and mother.
"Sir, are you finding everything all right?"
This was getting annoying. I was finding everything just fine. Didn't she see the nice cardigan-and-blouse sets that I was holding in my hand? Or was she asking me whether I was "all right" because these sets were poorly chosen? I solicited her input just in case.
"What do you think of this set for my wife?" I asked, holding up a white cable-knit sweater cardigan alongside a black blouse meant to go under it.
"Hmm ... those are good colors." Then came the uppercut. "But the blouse is a bit too fancy for the sweater, because cotton sweaters are meant to be more casual."
I was really in over my head. I can evaluate color combinations - but material combinations? Forget about it.
"Why don't we try this other sweater?" she recommended, aligning the blouse with a plum-colored, waist-tied, woolen-alpaca-acrylic cardigan sweater. It looked decent, but I was still pretty convinced that the white sweater - cotton or not - had looked just as good. So I called over yet another salesperson.
"How does this combo look? Or does the white one look better with this blouse?"
"Oh, the purple looks amazing!"
Who was I going to trust to pick out women's clothing - my own eyes, or actual women? So after a good half-hour of striving to assemble two decent sweater-and-blouse sets, I finally submitted to the logic of being a man in Ann Taylor Loft: I left the ultimate decision in the hands of well-experienced professionals who had worn women's garments for their entire lives.
At the checkout counter, the store's lone male employee took me aside. "Sorry if you were hassled a lot," he said. "We just don't get that many guys in here." This made me wonder: did I really need all the help I'd been given, or had the saleswomen imposed the soft bigotry of lower expectations on me because of my gender?
And then a higher-than-expected tab hit me. I wasn't the victim of sexism - I was just easy prey for solid salesmanship. Or saleswomanship.
"You can get 20% off with an Ann Taylor Loft Rewards Card," he said.
I'll never leave home without it.

Blog post and comments available on The Huffington Post here.

Sacrificing Human Rights for Naught

Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:43:40 -0500

One of the ugliest aspects of President Barack Obama’s foreign policy has been its indifference to human rights abuses worldwide. Despite the administration’s claim that it is merely prioritizing U.S. strategic interests over ideological aspirations, Obama’s outreach to authoritarian regimes has yielded discouraging results: China still refuses to accept binding cuts in carbon emissions; Iran is still pursuing nuclear capabilities; and Venezuela is reportedly looking to join Iran in the near-nuclear club. In turn, many Americans are starting to fear that a key tenet of American exceptionalism – supporting pro-democratic forces against their authoritarian repressors – is being sacrificed for naught.
Yesterday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sought to allay these concerns. Speaking at Georgetown, Clinton declared that the Obama administration remains committed to promoting human rights abroad, but was doing so “pragmatically”:
Sometimes, we will have the most impact by publicly denouncing a government action, like the coup in Honduras or violence in Guinea. Other times, we will be more likely to help the oppressed by engaging in tough negotiations behind closed doors, like pressing China and Russia as part of our broader agenda. In every instance, our aim will be to make a difference, not to prove a point.
A few hours – but six thousand miles – away from Foggy Bottom, another State Department event demonstrated the problems inherent in the Obama approach. In a press conference at Tanta University, U.S. Ambassador to Egypt Margaret Scobey declared that Egyptians enjoy full freedom of the press and that Egyptian human rights organizations work in complete freedom (h/t Samuel Tadros). So: did she “make a difference”? Alas no. This past weekend, an Egyptian court sentenced pro-democratic blogger Wael Abbas to six months in prison in absentia for sabotage. (As if straight out of Kafka, Abbas is still unsure what he is being accused of sabotaging.)
The Obama administration’s approach isn’t “realist.” It’s useless.

Original post available on Frum Forum here.

How the Nets Might Still Entertain Us

Sat, 5 Dec 2009 16:40:26 -0500

On Friday night, the New Jersey Nets finally won their first game of the season, defeating the Charlotte Bobcats 97-91 and ending an NBA-record-setting run of futility. Yet far from ending the Nets’ woes, this victory actually creates more questions than it answers. First and foremost, how can the 1-18 Nets justify playing another 63 brutal, meaningless games? More importantly, how can they get enough fans to watch those 63 games?
With these questions in mind, here are three suggestions:
1. Sign Julius Erving.
Sure, it’s been twenty-two years since his last NBA game, so he’s probably a bit out of practice. But if the Nets are destined to lose anyway, then they might as well lose with the franchise’s only true legend on their roster. And Dr. J. would be worth whatever salary it takes to put him in uniform – Nets ticket sales would go through the roof instantly, as fans would pack the Izod Center just hoping to see flashes of Erving’s former brilliance. And even if that former brilliance isn’t forthcoming, Dr. J. would give the Nets a more plausible explanation for their haplessness: how can anyone expect a team to win when its best player is pushing 60?
2. Move future home games to an outdoor schoolyard.
The longer the Nets go without playing like a professional basketball team, the harder it becomes for them to justify playing in a professional arena – at least morally.
In turn, the Nets would win substantial credibility if they acknowledged their sorry state by playing their home games in the most basic, bare-bones setting possible: the schoolyard. The various factors that uniquely influence schoolyard basketball games just might create enough intrigue to boost television ratings. Indeed, fans would want to see how Devin Harris handles the challenge of dribbling on an uneven asphalt surface, or how the wind affects Courtney Lee’s jump shots. And the stakes would be raised considerably during the coldest days of winter, when ice and snow could become decisive variables.
Of course, schoolyard games probably won’t boost attendance. But insofar as most schoolyards only have seating for a few hundred fans, the Nets might finally boast an occasional sell-out. And by making the shift to schoolyard home games permanent, the Nets could move to Brooklyn early and spare New Yorkers the expense of an $800-million-dollar arena.
3. Move future home games to Iraq under the auspices of the U.S.O.
By playing games for U.S. military personnel in Iraq, the Nets could find a new fan-base and – most importantly – serve an important cause. Moreover, the time difference between Iraq and New Jersey would give the Nets a good excuse for their miserable television ratings. Finally, since the Nets will never be the best team in the nation, they might as well become the best team in another nation.
Obviously, this is just a preliminary list and I’m open to other suggestions. What do you think the Nets could do to keep their fans entertained?

Blog post available on The Huffington Post here.

EU Opens the Door to More Mideast Violence

Wed, 2 Dec 2009 13:43:11 -0500

Next week, European Union foreign ministers will meet to discuss a draft document that calls for a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital.
If approved, this resolution will mark the latest failure of President Barack Obama’s remarkably sloppy Middle East policy. After all, American leadership in brokering peace – or attempting to broker it – has been a cornerstone of international consensus regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict for over four decades. Even the Bush administration – which was routinely (and unfairly) lambasted for “waiting too long” to promote Israeli-Palestinian peace – managed to bolster American diplomatic preeminence in this sphere by drafting the Roadmap and assembling the “Quartet” as its sponsor. But with the EU breaking off from the Quartet and developing its own set of policies regarding the conflict, America’s leadership on this issue is severely in doubt.
It is worth emphasizing that Washington’s longtime involvement in managing the Middle East conflict is as much about showcasing American diplomatic strength as it is about minimizing violence between the two sides. For this reason, the sudden shift in the diplomatic environment is likely to have devastating results. With the EU recognizing Palestinian claims along the 1967 borders – including to lands on which Israeli settlements stand – it is giving Palestinian terrorist organizations the ultimate excuse for attacking. Essentially, these groups would argue that they are fighting to end the occupation of their now-internationally recognized state, and the newfound legitimacy of their violence would encourage it.
These developments – and the extent to which they anticipate renewed hostilities – should give pause to those who doubt the relevance of American primacy to preserving international order. President Obama is one of these doubters.

Original post available at Frum Forum here.

Obama's "Dangerous" Mideast Analysis

Fri, 27 Nov 2009 23:38:11 -0500

Last week during a press conference in Beijing, President Barack Obama endorsed one of the most propagandized of pop theories regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. When asked about Israel's plan to build 900 apartment units in Gilo - a Jewish neighborhood of southwest Jerusalem beyond the Green Line - Obama remarked:
I think that additional settlement building does not contribute to Israel's security. I think it makes it harder for them to make peace with their neighbors. I think it embitters the Palestinians in a way that could end up being very dangerous.

In other words, Israeli settlement-building causes Palestinian terrorism.  It is worth pointing out that this idea is so widely discredited that even Jimmy Carter - after initially including it in his controversial book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid - has rejected it. Of course, the main problem with this theory is that it is morally outrageous: the notion that anything justifies targeting and killing innocent civilians is repugnant to decent people.   But more importantly, the theory is flat out wrong. After all, terrorism is typically an organizationally coordinated activity, in which the costs associated with attacks (acquiring materials, building a bomb, arranging transportation, etc.) are often too high for any individual - no matter how "embittered" he might be - to bear. Moreover, terrorist organizations - like other political players - are strategic actors: they strike when the strategic environment permits them to do maximal damage, and not merely when developments on the ground make them angry.  Recent developments reinforce the extent to which strategic realities - and not Israeli construction - determine Palestinian terrorists' decision-making. This past weekend, Hamas announced that it would halt rocket attacks on Israel from Gaza, with one Hamas official acknowledging that the group wanted to prevent another round of Israeli retaliation. Indeed, given the strategic environment, Hamas fears further destruction in Gaza much more than it wishes to avenge new apartment units in Gilo.  None of this should be surprising to President Obama, whose supposedly "realist" outlook should give him an appreciation for the precedence that strategic interests take over emotional ones. On the other hand, a strange pattern seems to be emerging in the President's foreign policy prescriptions: realist principles take a hiatus whenever he is dealing with the Middle East.

Blog post available on The Huffington Post here.

Palin: Celebrity But No Credibility

Sun, 15 Nov 2009 22:15:17 -0500

If there’s any silver lining to the miserable beating that Republicans endured nationwide in the 2008 elections, it’s that we were given an opportunity to wipe the slate clean and prepare for the next era of conservative leadership. Among other things, this requires developing a new crop of leaders for crafting a credible, conservative agenda around which a new Republican electoral coalition might coalesce.
Conservative journalists and pundits can play an important role in this process. Yet a number of commentators have prematurely bet the mortgage money on Sarah Palin stock. On Sunday, Commentary’s Jennifer Rubin unleashed an angry string of accusations against Palin’s critics – that they’re “unhinged”; repeat “familiar plotlines”; and greedily seek “the approving nods of cable-news-show bookers and magazine editors.” Then Rubin offered this:
It matters not that [Palin] seized the floor in the health-care debate and has a million followers on Facebook who can read her views on energy policy and other issues without the media filter.
Since when does telling an outrageous lie – namely, that the Obama administration’s health care proposal would create “death panels” – constitute “seizing the floor”?” Since when do we measure the governing potential of a prospective presidential candidate by how many Facebook fans she has? If I remember correctly, one of the best arguments against then-presidential candidate Barack Obama was that he was just a celebrity without “any accomplishment which would entitle him to such regard” (h/t, er, Jennifer Rubin on 7/31/08).
At this moment, Republicans should be in the sorting phase, examining the qualities and deficiencies of potential nominees. And if a candidate’s best quality is her popularity on Facebook, then perhaps her critics are onto something.

Original post available at Frum Forum here.

The Mets Must Get Younger, Trade Beltran

Wed, 11 Nov 2009 22:34:18 -0500

The first decade of the 21st century may go down as the most painful in New York Mets history.
Of course, it started with great promise: in 2000, the Mets made it to the playoffs for the second year in a row and won the National League championship. But it was all downhill from there: the Mets lost the World Series to the Yankees; hired Art Howe; shifted Jose Reyes to make room for Kaz Matsui; traded Scott Kazmir for Victor "I'm Not Even Related to Carlos" Zambrano; fell to the Cardinals in the 2006 NLCS; lost a seven-game lead to the Phillies with 17 games to play; lost another lead the following September; and spent all of 2009 reeling from injuries. The past decade also featured Willie Randolph's unsmiling tenure; Mike Piazza's sudden physical breakdown; Roberto Alomar's bizarre under-performance; and Mo Vaughn's weighty failure. Oh, and Mets owner Fred Wilpon reportedly lost millions of dollars in Bernard Madoff's Ponzi scheme.
Naturally, Mets fans hope that the worst has passed. But if the Amazin's aim to turn things around in the coming decade, they must avoid repeating their two most baneful blunders from the previous one.
First, the Mets need to stop paying top dollar for veterans who are well past their prime. Granted, this seems pretty obvious. Yet time after time during the 2000s, the Mets signed or traded for former stars who were already on the downward slope of their careers: Vaughn, Pedro Martinez, Tom Glavine, Jeromy Burnitz, Shawn Estes, Richard Hidalgo, Shawn Green, Moises Alou, Julio Franco, Luis Castillo, Gary Sheffield, and J.J. Putz. Moving ahead, Mets brass should resist free agents who, under the best of circumstances, might -- just might - repeat their performance from three seasons ago. Personnel moves should be based on up-to-date data, not wishful thinking.
Second, the Mets should part with their aging stars before it is too late -- preferably, by trading them away for younger, less expensive prospects. This would mark a shift from the sentimentality of the previous decade, which deterred the Mets from trading Mike Piazza once his decline became evident post-2002.
In this vein, the Mets should trade Carlos Beltran now, while they can still move his costly contract with relative ease. Beltran might be attractive to any team that sees itself as one good outfielder away from contending: he will be only 33 years-old next season; has two years left on his contract; and, despite his injury-plagued 2009 season, is still considered a perennial all-star. But he is no longer the franchise player around which a contender might be built, and his trade value is likely to decline precipitously after this off-season. Therefore, Beltran is most valuable to the Mets as immediate, prospect-attaining trade bait -- and least valuable as an expensive, decent player on an otherwise bad team.
At the moment, it is hard to imagine the Mets contending in 2010. After all, many players are returning from injury; the entire right side of the infield and much of the outfield need to be overhauled; and at least three other teams in the National League East look stronger. In turn, the Mets should build for the future by pursuing younger, cheaper prospects. Of course, this is hardly a new strategy -- but it is one that the Mets have long avoided to their peril.

Blog post available on The Huffington Post here.

A Mets Fan's Lament

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:00:42 -0400

This year's Yankees-Phillies World Series has generated much awkwardness for transplanted New York Mets fans living in Philadelphia, such as myself. Long the objects of Yankees fans' gloating and Phillies fans' scorn, we have suddenly become recipients of their sympathies -- with an explicit agenda, of course.

Indeed, the champagne from the Yankees' American League championship was still spritzing when a family friend e-mailed me from New York. "Where do your loyalties lie? Rooting for your hometown team" -- the Yankees -- "or for the arch enemy?" -- the Phillies. "Do the right thing," he urged.

Meanwhile, Phillies fans had been working on me for nearly a week. "If it's the Yankees and the Phillies in the Series, who are you going for?" a friend asked. At that moment, it was a painful prospect -- but not yet a brutal reality. "The Angels," I said, taking the Fifth. "Or, maybe the umpires."

* * *  Well, with a most undesirable World Series match-up now upon us Mets fans, I've had to make some difficult decisions. In this vein, it's important to be clear about two things.

First, I am rooting for the Phillies -- and hard -- because they are the far lesser of the two evils. After all, the Phillies are merely the Mets' divisional rivals, which is to say that the only reason for Mets fans to hate the Phillies is an administrative (and somewhat geographic) coincidence.

By contrast, the Yankees are the Mets' cultural rivals. Whereas the Mets have long embodied an admirable, tough-luck struggle for glory, the Yankees project an obnoxious we-should-always-win-the-World-Series sense of entitlement. The Mets-Yankees divide is one between the little guy who toils for triumph and the executive who buys it -- between the dreamer who longs for victory and the brat who no longer appreciates it. In short, Mets fans are diametrically opposed to baseball's Goliath. We cannot root for the Yankees any more than Christians can cheer on Satan.

Second, this Phillies-Yankees World Series isn't the worst match-up to ever confront Mets fans -- the 1999 Yankees-Braves World Series was much, much worse. In that series, Mets fans had to choose between the much-hated Yankees and a divisional rival that had just defeated the Mets in the National League Championship Series. And the Mets lost that championship series in a most gut-wrenching fashion: two nights after winning Game 5 on Robin Ventura's fifteenth-inning "grand single," the Mets blew two late-inning leads in Game 6 and finally fell when Kenny Rogers walked in the winning run in the bottom of the eleventh inning. I am quite convinced that nothing will ever match that kind of sports-induced pain (though Carlos Beltran's Game 7, ninth-inning strikeout in the 2006 NLCS came awfully close).

Still, I rooted for the Braves.

* * *

So, for the next week or so, I will be donning a Phillies cap -- proudly. I will suddenly develop a love for the "High Hopes" song; convince myself that the Phillie Phanatic is more adorable than annoying; and start referring to some of my least favorite players by their first names, as if I know them personally ("Chase is soooo clutch!"). Indeed, I will endure the shocked -- shocked! -- e-mails from my Yankees-loving friends back in New York, uniting with a rival's fans against a greater common enemy.

But be forewarned, Phillies fans: this love affair will be short-lived. As soon as Shane (please, God!) catches the Series' final out, I intend to reaffirm my vows to the orange-and-blue. There will be no parades in my near future, or officially licensed championship gear in my closet.

Still, we'll have occasional reunions, such as when the Yankees and Phillies meet in regular-season interleague play. Which is to say, yes, we'll always have 2009.

Blog post available on The Huffington Post here.

A Third Intifada?

Tue, 20 Oct 2009 17:13:25 -0400

On Monday, Jordanian King Abdullah II referred to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as “the most serious threat to the stability of the region and the Mediterranean.” Middle East policy analysts should take his warning to heart. After all, in gauging the political trends of the Middle East, the Jordanian monarchy has been among the most reliable barometers historically.
This is partly due to Jordan’s uncomfortable geo-strategic position. Indeed, with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to its west and Iraq to its east, Jordan is uniquely susceptible to the ideological currents and strategic shifts affecting the region’s hottest battle zones. Moreover, Jordan’s imbalanced demography – in particular, the fact that a Hashemite king presides over a Palestinian majority – makes its monarchy particularly wary of any destabilizing signals. These sensitivities create a strong bias in favor of non-ideological, interest-based policy-making, with Jordan shifting its priorities – and, at times, its loyalties – in rapid response to the regional changes that it perceives.
In this vein, Abdullah’s sudden insistence that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is “the most serious threat to the stability of the region” represents a critical shift in judgment. Indeed, back in 2004, the Jordanian monarch warned that a looming “Shiite crescent” – a near-contiguous sphere of Iranian influence extending through Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories – was the foremost threat to regional stability. Abdullah was prescient: Iran’s interference in Iraq undermined the U.S. war effort, while Tehran’s increased support for Hamas, Hezbollah, and Syria solidified an anti-western axis in the Middle East.
Of course, the challenges associated with Iranian ascendancy haven’t been resolved, and dealing with Iran’s ongoing pursuit of nuclear capabilities still tops the U.S.’s Middle East agenda. Still, Abdullah’s shift in priorities towards the Israeli-Palestinian sphere is worth noting, as it constitutes the best open-source indicator that recent Palestinian threats to resume suicide terrorism and launch a third Intifada are not idle chatter. Naturally, the prospect of renewed Israeli-Palestinian fighting – particularly within the West Bank – is far more threatening to Jordan than a nuclear Iran, and Abdullah’s diversion from his former fear of a “Shiite crescent” suggests that the next, bloody chapter of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict might be fast approaching.

Article available on New Majority here.

A Brave Voice for Tolerance in Egypt

Tue, 20 Oct 2009 00:00:32 -0400

Thirty years since the signing of the Camp David Accords, virulent hatred of Israel still abounds in Egypt. This hatred is popularly consumed, as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf are best sellers. It is prized in universities, where Egyptian professors routinely agitate against academic exchanges with their Israeli counterparts – even when no such exchanges have been planned. And it is reinforced by the Egyptian government, which harasses Egyptians who dare to visit Israel (most of whom, not coincidentally, are Christians).
Against this backdrop, one Egyptian scholar’s brave defense of “normalization” with Israel is worth noting. Dr. Hala Mustafa, editor-in-chief of the journal al-Demoqratiya, recently hosted Israeli Ambassador Shalom Cohen at the headquarters of the state-owned Al-Ahram media group in downtown Cairo. Shortly thereafter, the Journalists’ Syndicate – the foremost professional organization of Cairo’s media elite – opened deliberations to discipline Mustafa for violating its ban on dealing with Israelis. Meanwhile, Al-Ahram has launched its own investigation of Mustafa’s activities.
But rather than shrink from this challenge, Mustafa has boldly attacked the cultural boycott against Israel, arguing – correctly – that it hasn’t achieved anything for the Palestinian cause. She has also criticized Egypt’s closed-minded media establishment, telling the Financial Times, “I think most of the political trend advocating boycott comes through a media which has not changed since the 60s.” She further lashed out at the hypocrisy of the Egyptian government, saying, “While the Egyptian government is the biggest normalizer with Israel, people who act in the same manner are punished.”
According to Mustafa, the decision to invite the Israeli ambassador to Al-Ahram’s headquarters emerged from discussions among Egyptian intellectuals that followed President Barack Obama’s Cairo speech. This is precisely how the White House should want that speech to be interpreted – as a call for peaceful exchange and tolerance. For this reason, at the very moment that her career is being jeopardized for promoting cross-cultural dialogue, the Obama administration should praise Mustafa as a voice of reason and moderation. This simple act would open space for other Egyptian liberals to challenge the orthodoxies of their countrymen and government without fear of retribution – something that must happen if President Obama is serious about combating violent extremism in the Middle East.
Alternatively, if President Obama allows Mustafa to slip through the cracks of her colleagues’ intolerance, it may be a long time before another Cairene call for coexistence emerges.

Article available on the New Majority website here.

He Shocks, He Scores!

Thu, 1 Oct 2009 10:34:49 -0400

I have a confession: until yesterday, I didn’t know who Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) was. In fact, if you’d mentioned Alan Grayson to me before yesterday, I might have thought you’d said “Ari Graynor,” and would have responded by saying that she was good in the otherwise disappointing Nick and Nora’s Infinite Playlist.
Today, however, I know who Alan Grayson is for one reason only: he is the latest obscure politician to garner national attention for an intemperate remark. Indeed, on Tuesday night, Grayson outrageously declared from the House floor that, “Republicans want you to die quickly if you get sick.” Then, when the anticipated firestorm followed on cue, Grayson fanned the flames: rather than apologizing to his Republican colleagues, he apologized to “the dead and their families,” calling the death of those who lack health insurance a “holocaust in America.”
The rise to national fame/infamy soon assumed Palinesque proportions. Within hours, Alan Grayson’s outburst had made him the far left’s favorite son, Republicans’ sworn enemy, Arianna Huffington’s latest raison d’talk, and – most importantly – well-known. The next chapter of this strangely familiar saga seems similarly predictable: Grayson will soon be submerged in a weighty wad of online campaign contributions. And, most fortuitously for Grayson, these contributions will come at just the right time: he doesn’t have a Republican opponent yet for the 2010 elections, so his forthcoming war chest could deter a challenge.
It almost seems like Grayson had it all planned. Almost.
Of course, Grayson would hardly be the first politician to recognize that, simply put, there is no such thing as bad publicity. The problem, however, is that the Age of Hypermedia has magnified the incentives for crude political behavior substantially. Indeed, desperate politicians – particularly those expecting stiff competition in the next election – know that outrageous statements are more likely to get broadcast/blogged/tweeted/posted/forwarded than well-reasoned ones. They further know that these statements will mostly alienate those who wouldn’t have voted for them anyway, while the die-hards will back them more strongly than ever – and often with cash. Just ask Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN), whose receipts rose substantially after she suggested that then-presidential candidate Barack Obama held “anti-American views”; or Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC), who reaped $1.8 million in contributions barely a week after he shouted “you lie” at President Obama during a joint-session of Congress.
The power to change this trend lies mostly with party leaders. When House Democrats pass a resolution censuring Joe Wilson – or when House Republicans attempt to do the same regarding Alan Grayson – they give outrageous behavior far more credit than it deserves, and counterproductively rally the die-hards to defend the indefensible. In turn, party leaders might be best served by letting outrageous statements from members of the opposing party speak for themselves. Most Americans don’t need an act of Congress to recognize that shouting at the President is wrong, and forgoing that act of Congress denies the die-hards their battle cry.
Moreover, party leaders need to discipline their own candidates for uncivil behavior. This isn’t just a moral issue, but a strategic one. After all, the more money that flows to a party’s most blustering candidates, the less money available for moderate ones – and the more quickly a party becomes identified by its most controversial members on account of their fundraising prowess.

Article and comments available from New Majority here.

Obama’s Mideast Strategy: Useless if Not Harmful

Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:11:13 -0400

On Tuesday, President Barack Obama will hold trilateral talks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas at the annual U.N. Summit in New York.
Naturally, smart gamblers will bet against a peace process breakthrough. For starters, history suggests that the forthcoming Obama-Abbas-Netanyahu meeting will go the way of previous Bush-Abbas-Olmert and Clinton-Arafat-Barak encounters: nice photos, no results. Moreover, the two parties seem as far apart as ever on all of the issues – security, borders, refugees, and Jerusalem – that stand at the heart of the conflict. And then there’s the inconvenient fact that Hamas – an Iranian-funded terrorist organization that rejects Israel’s very right to exist – controls half of the Palestinian body politic.
But even if these traditional barriers to Middle East peacemaking weren’t enough, President Obama has – through his own policy decisions – erected another. Indeed, by reinforcing Islamists’ version of history and calling it “public diplomacy,” Obama has systematically alienated the Israeli people, who have increasingly backed Netanyahu’s more skeptical approach to both U.S. policy and peace making. Polls currently show that Netanyahu’s approval rating among Israelis is at 65% – staggeringly high, especially by the standards of Israel’s fractious political system – while only 4% of Israeli Jews see Obama as pro-Israel.
How might this affect Obama’s ability to forge Middle East peace? Try this thought experiment: put yourself in Netanyahu’s shoes and assume that, like most politicians, your top priority is political survival. Do you take the risks associated with immediate peace negotiations and more closely align yourself with an American president who is deeply unpopular among your constituents? Or, do you stick with an alternative approach that a strong majority of your countrymen endorse? The answer should be obvious.
Of course, none of this is news to the Obama administration. In recent months, it has attempted to counteract Israeli skepticism by pressing Arab regimes to make friendly gestures towards Israel. But, once again, Obama’s own policies have gotten in the way: Arab leaders have refused incremental “normalization,” using the administration’s earlier demand for a complete freeze of Israeli settlement expansion as an excuse for doing nothing at all. And, strategically, this makes perfect sense for them. Just put yourself in the shoes of an Arab leader: when the U.S. President naïvely affirms your long-held contention that Israeli settlements – and not terrorism, nor your own rejection of Israel’s right to exist – are the primary obstacles to peace, you run with it.
It is worth repeating that, even without Obama’s policy blunders, Israeli-Palestinian peace would be highly improbable. Still, Obama is supposed to be the “realist” president who, according to his most erstwhile defenders, prioritizes strategy and interests above principles. If so, how has he failed to understand Arab and Israeli leaders’ interests and decision-making so spectacularly?

Original post and comments available from New Majority here.

Sotomayor’s New Excuse for Affirmative Action

Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:57:18 -0400

During her Senate confirmation hearings yesterday, Judge Sonia Sotomayor invented an entirely new justification for affirmative action. In response to a question from Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI), Sotomayor argued that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause required affirmative action:
The Constitution promotes and requires the equal protection of law of all citizens in its Fourteenth Amendment. To ensure that protection, there are situations in which race in some form must be considered; the courts have recognized that. Equality requires effort, and so there are some situations in which some form of race has been recognized by the court. (Emphasis mine.)
To understand just how far Sotomayor veered from the Court’s longtime interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment as it pertains to affirmative action, a brief history is in order.
Historically, affirmative action has been challenged before the Supreme Court on the grounds that it violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. In two landmark cases – Bakke (1978) and Bollinger v. Grutter (2003) – well qualified white students who had been rejected from graduate schools argued (convincingly, according to the data) that they would have been admitted under affirmative action had they been minorities. In short, these white students argued that they had been treated unequally on the basis of their race, and that this treatment was unconstitutional.
Though the Court ultimately rejected their claims, it provided strict guidelines as to the means and ends that affirmative action programs must satisfy. In this vein, the Court asserted that “the attainment of a diverse student body” was the only constitutional justification for affirmative action. It further held that admissions committees could use race as only “one of many factors,” since race comprises only one component of intellectual diversity. Meanwhile, in both cases, the Court rejected one of the most common, hackneyed defenses of affirmative action policies – namely, the notion that racial preference can be employed to “remedy disadvantages cast on minorities by past racial prejudice.” As Justice Powell stated in his Bakke decision, “there is a measure of inequity in forcing innocent persons … to bear the burdens of redressing grievances not of their making.”
Well, apparently someone forgot to tell Sotomayor. Of course, we already knew from her infamous and often-repeated “wise Latina” remark that Sotomayor believes in the link between an individual’s ethnicity and intellectual outlook – a premise that the Court, regrettably, has long accepted in upholding the constitutionality of affirmative action programs. But the likely future Supreme Court justice further believes that promoting equality as per the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause requires the privileging of minority students to ensure their “protection” – which suggests that race should be prioritized in admissions decision, as opposed to being considered as “one of many factors.”
Indeed, this is a startling, though subtle, constitutional invention. And thanks to the Democrats’ supermajority in the Senate, it is one with which we will soon have to live.

Original post available on the New Majority website here.

Hardball 5 Logos

Tue, 14 Jul 2009 21:30:46 -0400

Over at Uni Watch, there’s been an interesting discussion regarding Tecmo Bowl -- a late 1980s/early 1990s video game that, due to certain licensing issues, featured real players but nickname-less teams (e.g., the Eagles were simply known as “Philadelphia”). Moreover, in place of the NFL teams’ actual logos, Tecmo Bowl created a series of “fantasy” logos.

Well, the 1990s video baseball game Hardball was similar in many respects. Hardball was licensed by the MLB Players Association, but did not have licenses for MLB team names and logos, meaning that teams were known by their city/state names (e.g., the Tigers were simply known as “Detroit”). And, just as in Tecmo Bowl, Hardball gave each team a “fantasy” logo in lieu of the team’s actual logo. Generally speaking, these “fantasy” logos fall into five categories (these are from Hardball 5):

• Dull arrangements of letters signifying the team’s city/state. Need a sedative? Take a look at the “fantasy” logos for San Diego, Boston, Baltimore, Minnesota (zzz), Milwaukee (zzzz), New York (NL) (zzzzz), and the two leagues (which are just called “American” and “National,” as calling them “American League” and “National League” would have required licenses). Kansas City’s “fantasy” logo also belongs in this soporific category – it’s basically just the word “Kansas” in a circle (and, interestingly, looks a lot like the Triple-A Omaha Royals’ logo, which is one of the dullest in sports). Similarly, Texas’ “fantasy” logo just says “Texas” (natch).

• Generic symbolic representation of the team’s city/state: These logos look like bad tourist t-shirts. San Francisco’s “fantasy” logo features the Golden Gate Bridge in the background. Los Angeles’ “fantasy” logo contains palm trees (and, oddly, reads “California”). New York’s (AL) “fantasy” logo is shaped like a big apple. Seattle’s “S” is set against the background of that city’s infamous skyline (but, oddly, the logo is blue and orange).

• Sort of retro, but probably not intentionally. Check out St. Louis’ “fantasy” logo – it’s boring, but I sort of appreciate Hardball 5’s decision to use “SL” as opposed to “StL,” since the Cardinals wore “SL” at various points from 1902 through 1939. Meanwhile, Philadelphia’s “fantasy” logo features a “P” that is somewhat similar to the “P” on their mid-1920s caps.

• Right initial, but otherwise confusing. This category is frustrating because you get the sense that the Hardball 5 designers could have gotten the logo right by not adding some pointless or downright inappropriate detail. Montreal’s “fantasy” logo is the perfect example – it has a blue “M,” but also bizarrely features the word “Jets.” Meanwhile, Detroit’s “fantasy” logo contains the initials “DP” – which is, obviously, only half right (unless we’re talking about Detroit’s basketball team). Chicago (NL) has a “C” in its “fantasy” logo, but the “C” is inexplicably purple. Pittsburgh also has a purple initial and, adding to the confusion, there’s a black cat sitting on top of the “P.” Cleveland’s “C” seems to be obscuring a crown (or is that a mitt?). And then there’s a pure case of country confusion: Cincinnati’s “C” has a maple leaf in it.

• Totally off the mark: In this category, you kind of get the sense that the Hardball 5 folks were going for pure revisionism. Atlanta’s “fantasy” logo is the head of a tyrannosaurus rex. Houston’s “fantasy” logo features an ox (is this a reference to the Astros’ then-Triple-A team, the Tuscon Toros?). Anaheim’s “fantasy” logo features a baseball inside a horseshoe. Oakland has a ball and mitt (which would have been much more appropriate for Milwaukee, of course). Colorado’s “fantasy” logo features an Indian head (which could have been a perfectly fine logo for the Indians or Braves). Toronto features a halo-encircled baseball (a logo that would have worked perfectly for the team formerly known as Anaheim). And, in perhaps the greatest departure from the real team’s actual identity, the mascot featured in the “fantasy” logo for Chicago (AL) bears a strange resemblance to the 7-Up red dot character.

Ultimately, only one “fantasy” logo even comes even close to approximating the real thing: check out Florida’s, which – just like the Marlins’ actual logo – is circular, contains a fish, and has (deliberately illegible) teal writing along the circumference. Still, this isn’t too satisfactory: the fish is, after all, a dolphin (wrong sport!) – and it’s facing the wrong direction.

Thankfully, for those with enough free time, Hardball 5 offered a corrective: gamers were able to redesign their teams’ logos. It was painstaking, pixel-by-pixel DIY work, but – given the absurdly inaccurate logos we were dealt – it was an absolute necessity for any proto-Uni Watcher.

Obama's Iran Fantasy

Wed, 8 Jul 2009 11:08:59 -0400

One of the most common claims regarding President Barack Obama is that he is a realist in international affairs – that he constructs foreign policy on the basis of cold national interests, not ideology.
Yesterday, however, this claim was exposed as mythical. During an interview with CNN’s Ed Henry, Obama stated that recent events in Iran – which include a rigged election and violent, deadly crackdown against the pro-democratic demonstrations that followed – hadn’t affected his willingness to engage the mullahs:
Our theory has consistently been to present a door of opportunity for Iran – to have its sovereignty respected, to join the community of nations more fully.
Apparently, the self-proclaimed realist won’t let reality interfere with policymaking. Indeed, Obama refuses to acknowledge the real connection between the way a regime treats its own citizens and its credibility as a negotiating partner.
Well, perhaps Obama would be well-served listening to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s less conciliatory “theory.” As Basij militiamen were attacking protesters in the streets a few weeks ago, Ahmadinejad defiantly declared:
The means and results of the June 12th elections caused the defeat of American democratic liberalism, which is used as an instrument of hegemony. So, at the present time, the Islamic Iranian regime is a model for the world.
Indeed, Ahmadinejad resists true democracy – which would force him to accede to the wishes of his own people – on the absurd grounds that it is an American imposition. Can Obama really expect the Iranian leader to accede to actual American demands that will arise during negotiations regarding Tehran’s nuclear program?
Bottom line: the longer Obama refuses to understand the implications of recent events in Iran for the prospect of U.S.-Iranian dialogue, the more his foreign policy resembles a detached fantasy of Carteresque proportions.

Original post available on the New Majority website here.

The Latest Example of CNN Bias

Wed, 17 Jun 2009 15:53:31 -0400

Yesterday, Senator John Ensign (R-NV) admitted to an affair with the wife of a former staffer and, earlier today, he resigned from his post as head of the Republican Policy Committee. So it goes in politics: missteps in leaders’ personal lives inevitably exact costs on their political careers.

But for CNN, this story isn’t a political one -- i.e., a story that belongs on the “Politics” section of its website. Apparently, when a Republican has an extramarital affair, it’s a criminal story -- which is why CNN filed it under its “Crime” tab.

For the sake of comparison, check out where CNN filed its coverage of John Edwards’ extramarital affair (Politics). Or, check out where it filed news of former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey’s extramarital affair (Politics). Indeed, even when a Democrat does something unambiguously criminal during an affair -- such as former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer’s trysts with prostitutes -- it’s all just “Politics” for CNN.

Particularly as no charges of criminal activity are being made against Enslgn, CNN is upholding an absurd double-standard in its coverage.

Quote of the Day: Mousavi

Sat, 13 Jun 2009 12:47:11 -0400

“I'm warning I will not surrender to this dangerous charade. The result of such performance by some officials will jeopardize the pillars of the Islamic Republic and will establish tyranny.”
-Iranian presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi
If you’re wondering how Mousavi missed the memo regarding Iran’s long history of tyranny, just remember: he formerly served as prime minister. Indeed, for the Islamic Republic’s veteran insiders, “tyranny” is shorthand for “electoral loss.”
All of this should dispel the notion that Mousavi’s victory might have represented change in Iran.

Photo of the Day

Thu, 4 Jun 2009 12:49:46 -0400

How does one reach out to people who cover their ears?

(Photo from Time.)

Barbecue Diplomacy

Tue, 2 Jun 2009 16:39:40 -0400

In his latest overture to Iran, President Barack Obama has authorized U.S. embassies worldwide to invite Iranian officials to their July 4th parties. I actually attended an embassy-sponsored July 4th party in Cairo last year and can confirm that these are great social opportunities, with brief speeches on American values giving way to an evening of hot dogs, hamburgers, and beer.
Still, I wonder whether Iranian diplomats would feel comfortable at such an event for two reasons. First, since alcohol is forbidden in Islam and banned in Iran, I doubt that U.S. and Iranian emissaries will be bonding over brews. Second, Iranian diplomats’ barbecue meat of choice is typically the American flag.

Original post and comments available from contentions here.
Article also ran in the New York Post print edition on June 3, 2009.

Off Focus on Sotomayor

Tue, 2 Jun 2009 12:52:36 -0400

Last week, I criticized the coverage of Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court as remarkably lazy. Indeed, rather than undertaking a comprehensive review of Sotomayor’s seventeen years worth of judicial opinions, the media and blogosphere have focused on the easy — not to mention obvious — issue of race, with some going as far as labeling her an outright “racist” on account of her “32 words.”
But over at SCOTUS Blog, Tom Goldstein provides complete data from the 96 race-related cases aside from Ricci on which Sotomayor has decided during her long judicial career:
Of the 96 cases, Judge Sotomayor and the panel rejected the claim of discrimination roughly 78 times and agreed with the claim of discrimination 10 times; the remaining 8 involved other kinds of claims or dispositions. Of the 10 cases favoring claims of discrimination, 9 were unanimous. (Many, by the way, were procedural victories rather than judgments that discrimination had occurred.) Of those 9, in 7, the unanimous panel included at least one Republican-appointed judge. In the one divided panel opinion, the dissent’s point dealt only with the technical question of whether the criminal defendant in that case had forfeited his challenge to the jury selection in his case. So Judge Sotomayor rejected discrimination-related claims by a margin of roughly 8 to 1.
Goldstein also observes that in one case, Pappas v. Giuliani (2002), Sotomayor dissented from the majority’s holding that the NYPD could fire a white employee for distributing racist materials. I find the media’s insistence that Ricci — and not Pappas — is representative of Sotomayor’s judicial work deeply troubling. It only confirms my suspicion that the media has decided to make Sotomayor’s nomination about her supposed “empathy” for minorities — regardless of the skepticism that she has otherwise demonstrated towards discrimination claims the vast majority of the time.

Original post and comments available from contentions here.

Re: Yesterday’s News

Mon, 1 Jun 2009 18:02:28 -0400

As Peter noted, the outcome of the historic transition in journalism that we are witnessing remains entirely unknown.
So here’s one guess that I’ve been tossing around: while most newspapers will either fold or become trimmer online-only publications, a handful of bigger ones will stick around as non-profits. Basically, they will raise tax-deductible donations from donors who value the cause of journalism — particularly the importance of a well-informed public to a functioning democracy — and support the political slant of the particular newspaper.
Of course, much would change in a non-profit world of journalism. For starters, endorsing candidates would probably be out of the question, given the requirements of 501(c)(3) organizations. On the other hand, the greater influence of individual donors in supporting newspapers could contribute to even more biased reporting and coverage. Moreover, the culture of journalism might also change significantly, with reporters competing for endowed positions (The George M. Steinbrenner III Yankees Beat Reporter, anyone?), as opposed to a spot on the front page.
None of this would be particularly ideal. But insofar as newspapers are not economically sustainable in the Internet Age, the non-profit newspaper might provide an extra-market solution.

Original post and comments available from contentions here.