Sucking From My Thumb
The blogosphere has become so self-congratulatory that it sometimes forgets that the so-called “mainstream media” oftentimes does a good and noble and important job. Most major newspapers have adjusted rather well, having their own blogs on their web pages, and of course magazines have been doing so for years. In the last couple of days, an array of fascinating stories has popped up. I’ll offer brief commentary on each, but mostly the pieces, some straight news articles and some editorials and op-eds, stand on their own.
Finally, after much prodding from this corner, Mbeki has spoken out against kleptocrats, thugs, and tyrants among the African leadership. Perhaps somewhat unfortunately, it is not Thabo, but rather his brother, Moeletsi, deputy chairperson for the South African Institute for International Affairs, a Johannesburg-based think tank. Nonetheless, I find this heartening. Only when African leaders, and especially those in the continent’s most powerful country, start to speak out against some of the awful things being perpetrated by many of Africa’s worst leaders will there be progress toward legitimate and serious change. My favorite quotation? In citing the declining standards of living, Mbeki said, “These figures are not something that I am sucking from my thumb.”
On a much less reassuring note, Robert Mugabe is at it again, this time with the apparent support of the improvident lackwits in the UN General Assembly. In a textbook example of both demagoguery and sleight of hand (“Pay No Attention To That Man Behind The Curtain!”) Mugabe had the temerity to get up and blast the United States and England for a whole range of sins real and mostly imagined. I am all for open dialogue and unlike many who read and post on Rebunk, I think criticism of US foreign policy is utterly fair game, even if I think that substantively those criticisms may be wrong. I do not think it is right or wise to demonize our critics. But is the UN so feckless that they think Mugabe is a serious and legitimate critic? If the UN’s solons wanted to confirm its own irrelevance, they could not have chosen a better way.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but women aren’t a whole lot more virtuous than men. Ellen Goodman acknowledges as much in this op-ed in the Boston Globe. It’s amazing, but periodically you’ll still hear reductionist (or is it essentialist?) feminists argue that the world would be a better, safer, more sanctified place if women were in charge. Of course, while it is a small sample size, it maybe worth noting that every woman head of state has led her country into war.
Also from the Globe, house conservative Jeff Jacoby makes one part of the case of why we should see Saudi Arabia as an enemy and not a friend. The Rebunkers, whatever divides us (and it is a lot), have long agreed on some version of this argument.
Kerry is not the ideal candidate. He can be hard to like. But I am really growing tired of this nonsense that Bush is a resolute leader while Kerry is a flip flopper. Like most all politicians, Kerry has changed issues, has compromised at times, and has flat-out changed his mind. This happens in politics and it certainly happens in legislative bodies where compromise and yielding is at times not only a necessity, but a virtue. But how has Bush gotten a free pass on his many changes of heart, many of which seem pretty driven by political expedience? This piece in the Washington Post explores this phenomenon.
Meanwhile, I think the Times has it just about right regarding Allawi’s speech. There was more than a little disingenuousness involved. Of course on The Daily Show John Stewart showed more than a little confluence between words Bush has consistently used and the exact phrasing that Allawi used. Is it possible? Could it be? Is Allawi something of a puppet?
Northern Ireland has been quiet for a long time now. Indeed, since I was last there leading high school students to do peace work in Belfast in 2000, very little violence has occurred. For a whole range of reasons, some of which are probably obvious, The Boston Globe tends to have some of the best commentary on Ireland and Northern Ireland of any source in the United States. Here is one of their most recent op-eds. It is easy to overlook now, and there are those who will not give him credit for it, but establishing a lasting peace in Northern Ireland is Bill Clinton’s greatest foreign policy legacy -- and that is not intended to damn him with faint praise. It is easy to forget, but not so long ago, the situation in Northern Ireland was easily one of the most tense in all of the world. And although we did not think of it in that way then, it is pretty clear that Northern Ireland was one of the worst examples of terrorism in the world. The situation in “The North,” as they say, has calmed substantially. Clinton and George Mitchell deserve the lion’s share of the credit for this accomplishment. I just hope it can last.
So, apparently there weren’t enough troops for the job in Iraq. Coming tomorrow: Ice: It may be cold.
Finally, according to this article in the Mail & Guardian, despite all efforts to change the dynamic, the Bush administration is not making the headway with Jewish voters that it had hoped. Given that both parties support Israel’s right to exist and to defend itself, that many American Jews are skeptical of the hard right in Israel, and that American Jews tend to run liberal and do not vote on one issue exclusively, it is not surprising to me that most will remain firmly in the Democratic fold. There is, however, an annoying error of what I would call the line between interpretation and fact in the piece. While I am glad that Jewish voters will overwhelmingly vote for Kerry, the lead sentence in the article is, by its own facts, wrong: “United States President George Bush has failed to win over any of the traditional Jewish backing for the Democrats, despite the unwavering White House support for Israel and a vigorous campaign by the Republican Party.” And yet the numbers do not bear this out: In 2000 Bush garnered 19% of the Jewish vote. Current polls have him snagging 24%. The article does not state the margin of error, but my guess is that it is not 5%, and even if it is, that could mean that Bush has either neither gained nor lost ground, or it could mean that Bush has gained a whopping figure, up to 29% of the Jewish electorate. If the poll is accurate, then he has gained five percentage points, but as an increase by percentage, he would have gained almost 25% over his 2000 vote total. This might not reach to GOP’s hoped-for 30%, and it may make zero difference in the election, but it is not a sign that he has not gained “any” Jewish votes.
Sox can take 2 of 3 from the Yankees with a win today.