Something you can do to help Iraq

Read the Hitchens article here. And send books to:


Nathan Musselman
The American University of Iraq—Sulaimani
Building No. 7, Street 10
Quarter 410
Ablakh AreaSulaimani, Iraq
(+964) (0)770-461-5099

It's important to include the number at the end.

Must Read "Slate" Article on "Africa's Worst Dictator"

I found a very interesting article on Slate.com today (it was posted nearly a week ago) that argues that the (now) infamous Robert Mugabe is not the worst African dictator. Check out the article here.

While the article is quite persuasive, especially as to the American role in propping up Obiang, it raises the more important question: What is our Africa policy? And, why are we allowing Africa to be overrun and controlled by such vicious dictators? I thought that our policy under Bush was that we were going to promote democracy . . . across the globe.

I am not arguing that we should inculcate ourself in every single mess throughout the world. And perhaps it is perfectly rationale to only pick the fights where we have a sustained economic interest. It just seems that, with everything that is going on in Africa today--Equatorial Guinea, Sudan, Zimbabwe, and Rwanda (yes, still), we ought to be doing something more. If only to protect our investment in providing drugs for the treatment of malaria and HIV. If only to make those efforts a little more worthwhile. Isn't there SOMETHING we can do? Because Africa is not just a democracy crisis. We are not just dealing with these disgusting dictators. We are dealing with a public health crisis with its heart on the African continent.

Maybe we are doing all that we can do. But something tells me that is not quite right. Something tells me that there is something else we can do, and that we ought to do it--sooner rather than later.

A Blind Squirrel and Bush . . .

In yesterday’s NYTIMES, David Brooks made what appears to be the strongest argument on behalf of the Bush presidency, and Iraq policy in particular. (Though, strong is hardly a word for it.) The argument is that Bush, in his infinite stubbornness went to war in Iraq. His stubbornness frustrated the “purpose” of the war and created a mess. He kept approaching Iraq with the same stubbornness when it came to the “surge.” All of his military advisers and his Secretary of State thought that the surge was a bad idea, yet Bush, stubbornly went ahead with the plan. In Brooks’ words:

In these circumstances, it’s amazing that George Bush decided on the surge. And looking back, one thing is clear: Every personal trait that led Bush to make a hash of the first years of the war led him to make a successful decision when it came to this crucial call.

Bush is a stubborn man. Well, without that stubbornness, that unwillingness to accept defeat on his watch, he never would have bucked the opposition to the surge.

Bush is an outrageously self-confident man. Well, without that self-confidence he never would have overruled his generals.

Brooks may be well impressed with Bush’s stubborn decision and his willingness to keep pushing the same button, or keep filling in the same oval. His whole argument however, seems to break down to a long explanation of the old saw that, “even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every once in awhile.”

Yes, Brooks is correct that in politics and throughout history, no one side is right all of the time. However, I don’t think it is too much to ask of an American president that they try and find the right answer. Bush is the guy who sits down to the standardized test and answers “C” on every question. And sometimes he is “correct.” But this isn’t the approach I want from my politicians. I want someone who THINKS and recognizes that sometimes the answer is “C” and sometimes the answer is “A”, “B” or “D” and that all options ought to be, at the very least, considered. Some appreciation of nuance would be nice. The president that always answers “C” is the president that fails.

Tuesday Rant on the Headlines . . .

There are numerous things in the news today that are bothering me, so if you don't mind I am just going to rant a little.

• First, is the uproar over McCain advicer Charlie Black's comments suggesting that if a terrorist attack were to occur between now and the election, it would help John McCain politically. Predictably, this comment has drawn outrage from Barack Obama and strong chastisement from John McCain. But this was absolutely planned by the McCain campaign, this was not a gaffe, this was not a moment of accidental honesty (and it IS honesty) on Charlie Black's part. The McCain and Obama camps know equally that if there were another terrorist attack between now and the election, that it would turn some voters to the more "experienced" candidate in John McCain. McCain has consistently polled a little bit better than Obama on the issue of national security. This is no surprise. The outrage of Obama and the rebuke of McCain was also factored in by the McCain campaign as the "cost of doing business." These were merely transaction costs in an effort to get the issue of a possible terror attack back in the headlines and back into the minds of the American people.
• Next up is the new Don Imus fiasco. I don't listen to Don Imus and I really don't care what he says. That being said, I think it was wrong that he was fired over his Rutgers comments. The comments were, if not plainly, then really close to the line of plainly, racist. They were inexcusable. But, I was under the impression that, in this country, you were allowed to express repugnant thoughts. He even apologized, which okay, maybe you don't want to take him at his word, but he DID apologize and he has paid a price for his comments, a price that was, in my mind, too high. Now, there are new suggestions of Don Imus' racism based on comments he made about the reputed NFL thug, Pacman Jones, being black. Okay, sure there is a whiff of racism when he says that he wasn't surprised to hear that Jones was black. And, it strikes me as a little disingenuous when he starts backpedaling and saying that he said he wasn't surprised because he was suggesting that the cops pick on black people. He then went on to say that the cops arrested Pacman 6 times because they were picking on him because he was black. And Al Sharpton says he hopes Imus means it. 1) Who cares what Al Sharpton hopes or thinks or says more than any other person? (How is it that treating one or two men as the spokesmen for black America is not more perjorative, demeaning and racist than what Imus spews?) 2) Pacman Jones is a thug and he has been arrested so many times because he has behaved in a way that was, shall we say, below reproach? I am not naive enough to suggest that somewhere along the line, his being black, played NO role, but I am suggesting it was not a predominant role. 3) Don Imus is what he is. If you think he is racist, then so be it. Treat him like the ignorant individual you believe him to be and don't listen to him and don't report on him. You ARE allowed to be publicly wrong, racist and ignorant in this country. But, in the words of someone wise, who, quite honestly I forget, the answer to repugnant or "bad" speech is not to shut the speaker down; the answer is MORE speech, by MORE people.
• In the most "gag-me" campaign news I have ever heard, the report came out today that Obama and Hillary will make their first campaign stop together in Unity, New Hampshire, a town where they split the primary 107-107. I am quite sure that there are some people out there who think this is "neato," "cute" or "endearing." I happen to think this is absolutely obnoxious. Instead of cynically pandering to the naive and stupid, those seeking a sign, or a charming anecdote, as this clearly does, why doesn't the Obama campaign make Hillary join him in someplace where he actually needs her, like Florida, or perhaps maybe West Virginia where Hillary trounced him by 41% in a state Democrats CAN win? This is just stupid and only appeals to wild-eyed mush-brains.
• Finally, Focus on the Family's James Dobson is taking on Obama over his interpretation of scripture. Dobson says of Obama, "I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology," Dobson said. "... He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter." Well said James, and perhaps you are right. But isn't that the point Obama was trying to make? That you can in fact take scripture and twist it to fit your own worldview or "confused theology?" Wasn't this Obama's point and isn't this what you have been doing for years? The idea that the Bible speaks out both (or multiple) sides of its "mouth" is neither new, nor surprising, but it underlines a basic point: USING the Bible to ones political advantage is astoundingly moronic. OF COURSE, you can find a scripture passage that "backs up" or "supports" your belief/opinion, but, for the most part, these provisions are contradicted or made ridiculous elsewhere in the Bible (both Old and New Testament) by another passage. This last point was made with typical poignancy in this clip from "The West Wing."

My Hero Tim

I've been wanting to write something over the past several days since the passing of Tim Russert. But everything I wanted to say, seemed to be trite and inconsequential in any scheme of things, whether grand or small. I have watched the voluminous news coverage on NBC and MSNBC and have read about a dozen articles about Tim. Most of the stories have been light hearted and interesting and most have been confirmational of the sense that you always got from watching him.

I wanted to write about him because he was (and is) a hero to me. Why? Because he was one of the guys that worked his tail off and rose to the top. He did so without the benefit of an Ivy League education and the connections that provides. Instead, he proved himself in the crucible of Washington politics to be above "the rest."

I wrote last week in my post about Tiger and Phil, that I love watching genius at work. I love watching people who are the best at what they do. Tim Russert was the best at what he did and I loved watching him.

All of these things make him my hero. All of these are reasons why I watched him nearly every Sunday for the past 4 years. If I knew I was going to miss it, I dvr'd it, or made sure to catch a repeat. For me, watching Tim was appointment television. I hardly ever even referred to the show as "Meet the Press." Rather, I called it "Russert." He was the show and he was politics for me.

I don't think that Meet the Press will ever be the same. I don't know if it will ever be as good. I know that I will keep watching though. With this brilliant election season, how could I not?

I am not afraid to admit that I have shed a few tears over Tim's passing. It is very emotional to see his friends and his family remember him. It is very emotional to hear them say that the guy we saw on T.V. was the real guy. And so, while some may say that the coverage and eulogizing of Tim has been too much, it was just the right amount for me. I have never felt this way before. I have never felt loss from a distance, or shed a tear over someone I have never met. I have never grieved so remotely. To see and hear of others grieving so, comforted me. So for me, the coverage, the remembrances and the tears were in a word: perfect.

"If it's Sunday, it's "Meet the Press."" God Bless You Tim!

Interesting take on Muslims and Obama

Here is an interesting piece from the Detroit Free Press on what Rochelle Riley thinks is the real issue with Obama volunteers asking the two Detroit area women in hijabs not to sit in the front row.

The bigger story is that hateful extremists who used to exist on the fringe of society are now taking over and too much is being done to appease them instead of ignore them.

The news media who worry that the hate-mongers will accuse them of being too kind to Obama have spent as much time on the volunteer's misguided actions as they have on what the candidates will do about the economy.

I hate hippies . . .

I hate hippies almost as much as I hate fascists. This story brings them both together. Oh, and I love the First Amendment too so, this shit is dumb to me. Pun intended!

Ew!