Category Archives: The World

Sec. Clinton helps point way to what’s next

Of course, at such an emotion-packed historic moment as this, one encounters a lot of foolishness, from the behavior of those drunken college kids outside the White House last night to people who will actually say (and this I find stunning), OK, we got him, let’s leave Afghanistan

I thought Hillary Clinton’s remarks this morning addressed that rather nicely:

Here at the State Department, we have worked to forge a worldwide anti-terror network. We have drawn together the effort and energy of friends, partners, and allies on every continent. Our partnerships, including our close cooperation with Pakistan, have helped put unprecedented pressure on al-Qaida and its leadership. Continued cooperation will be just as important in the days ahead, because even as we mark this milestone, we should not forget that the battle to stop al-Qaida and its syndicate of terror will not end with the death of bin Ladin. Indeed, we must take this opportunity to renew our resolve and redouble our efforts.

In Afghanistan, we will continue taking the fight to al-Qaida and their Taliban allies, while working to support the Afghan people as they build a stronger government and begin to take responsibility for their own security. We are implementing the strategy for transition approved by NATO at the summit in Lisbon, and we supporting an Afghan-led political process that seeks to isolate al-Qaida and end the insurgency. Our message to the Taliban remains the same, but today it may have even greater resonance: You cannot wait us out. You cannot defeat us. But you can make the choice to abandon al-Qaida and participate in a peaceful political process….

Indeed, to the extent that the death of bin Laden sends a useful message to the world — to our friends and enemies — is that we will NOT give up. It’s about continuity and persistence. And it’s a powerful message. This is a time for following up the advantage provided by demoralization among the Taliban and al Qaeda at this moment, a moment created by the death of that movement’s chief symbol. Secretary Clinton explains it well.

Osama bin Laden is dead. So what happens now?

I originally wrote this BEFORE the president’s announcement. As you can see, I’ve now updated it with the video…

Waiting for President Obama to make the announcement that Osama bin Laden is dead.

And wondering what happens now. I’ve wondered that for 10 years: If bin Laden is dead, what does it change? Does the struggle end? Of course not. He’s now a martyr. But it’s still a huge moment.

And what will the president tell us it means, as he sees it? This is so un-Obama — Under my leadership, we have killed our enemy — what will he say? And what will he tell us to expect next? What will he say HE intends to do?

What does this mean NOW, against the context of the turmoil, the rise of democracy, sweeping through the region?

If I were the president, I’m not sure what I would say. So I’m preparing to watch, and listen.

I expect you are, too.

If you’d like to react, here’s a place to do it…

I do like me some Union Jacks

To me, the Union Jack is right up there with the SC State Flag as one of the most appealing flags ever. The US flag is, of course, the world’s most stirring to me, but it might be just a sentimental favorite. I think it’s the most beautiful in the world, but there’s no way for that to be an objective assessment. I associate it with all kinds of good things — such as the Republic for which it stands, the Constitution and stirring music and such, from the deeply meaningful (such as the greatest news photograph of all time) to the merely fun — to the point that I’m prejudiced. I’m not positive it would be one of my favorites, esthetically speaking, if I’d never seen it before. Or maybe it would — impossible to say. It’s not like I can wipe my mind clean and UNrecognize it, so as to evaluate fairly.

For that matter, while I have a lot of negative associations with it (and some positive ones, too), I think the Confederate flag we fight over is one of the most appealing, too. I’m talking pure esthetics, remember, setting associations aside. Something about the symmetry of the St. Andrew’s Cross gives it some of the same appeal as the Union Jack. Of course, symmetry isn’t everything — the crescent moon that throws off the symmetry on the SC state flag gives it just the right touch; the flag would lose much without it. Of course, what really makes the state flag is the little bit of white on indigo blue. I wish we used that more. I wish our license plates were solid dark blue with white letters (and maybe a small palmetto tree between the letters and numbers), which would be way classier than what we’ve got.

In fact — and this may be the most controversial statement I’ve ever made on the blog — I sort of wish that USC’s colors were indigo and white. On one level, that would be a smart move for the university, positioning it clearly as South Carolina’s flagship university. On another, however, it would be career suicide for anyone associated with the university to suggest it.

But back to the Union Jack — that is the way to use a St. Andrew’s Cross. I think the addition of the St. George’s makes all the difference, elevating it way above the Confederate image. The added complexity, or all that additional white, or something, just adds up to perfection.

Anyway, the people who watched the Royal Wedding were probably watching for other things. Me, I didn’t watch it. But without trying, I’ve seen images — on TV at Yesterday’s at lunch today, on a co-worker’s computer, and so forth. And two things have occurred to me. One, I Tweeted out this afternoon:

Prince William, it seems, has more uniforms in his closet than Glenn McConnell does

Five reTweets on that one so far, I see…

The other was when I saw image number 26 on this CNN gallery (I don’t want to get in trouble with Getty by posting it, and there’s no direct link provided, hence the indirect reference) on Lora’s desktop this afternoon.

All the Union Jacks you could want to see, right there on the Mall (where I was myself recently).

Huzzah, say I.

Or is THIS the handsomest flag ever?

Obama’s just looking better and better to me (and the UnParty) all the time

And no, this isn’t just because the Republicans who would oppose him seem engaged in a contest to see who can be the biggest whack job. It’s more about Obama himself.

Earlier, I indicated that Obama was, after a weak outing in 2008, looking more and more like the Energy Party candidate for 2012.

Well, now… and I’m even more happy about this… he’s looking more and more like he wants the nod of the UnParty.

I saw this most clearly reading a piece in the NYT’s Week In Review from Sunday, “Obama, Searching for a Vision.”

Well, first off, I don’t think Obama’s searching for a vision. I think he’s got one, and it looks clearer, and better, every day. Perhaps he is, as the piece suggests, “being pressed as never before to define what American liberalism means for the 21st century.” At least, pressed by some.

But what I think he’s doing is something much higher and better — defining pragmatism for the 21st century. This is what I’ve always liked about him, but as he comes to embody it more fully, as the right hates him more passionately and the left whines louder about how disappointing he is, I see him more favorably than ever.

Perhaps this can be explained most simply by the fact that he keeps doing stuff I agree with. Take this passage from the piece:

Mr. Obama has always cast himself as a pragmatist and he seems to be feeling his way in the post-midterm election environment. In some areas, he has retreated. The decision announced last week to try the accused Sept. 11 plotters in a military commission at the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, represented a 180-degree reversal under pressure from congressional Republicans and some Democrats. His embrace of a free-trade pact with Colombia continued a new emphasis on trade for a Democrat who once vowed to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, or Nafta.

The war in Libya represents one of the most complicated issues for Mr. Obama as he sets out his own form of modern liberalism. The hero of the anti-war movement in 2008 effectively is adopting Mr. Clinton’s humanitarian interventions in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s as a model, while trying to distinguish his actions from Mr. Bush’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Most of that I knew about, and have applauded. But somehow I missed that he had shaken off the completely irrational, amoral opposition of Big Labor to the Colombia Free Trade pact. Way to go, Mr. President!

Most political commentators, trapped in the extremely limiting notion that the politicians they write and speak about must either be of the left or right, can’t make him out. But he keeps making perfect sense to me. Perhaps I should send a memo out to the MSM letting them know that there’s a third way they can think of a politician (actual, there’s an infinite number of ways, but let’s not blow their little minds; one step at a time). There’s left (as “left” is popularly and imperfectly described) and right (as “right” is popularly and imperfectly described), and then there’s Brad Warthen. As in, “The candidate’s recent statements have been Warthenesque,” or “That was a distinctly Braddish move he made last week.”

It would open up whole new vistas for our national political conversation. Certainly a broader landscape than what we’re used to, with its limited expectations.

I LIKE a guy who at least tries to give us health care reform. I thought he didn’t go nearly far enough on that, but now that I see Republicans’ internal organs have turned inside-out in apoplexy at what little he’s done, I suppose he lowered his sights out of compassion for what REAL reform would have done to them.

I like a guy who realizes that closing Guantánamo (as both he AND McCain wanted to do, and generally for sound reasons) and trying all those guys in civil courts was impractical, and moves on.

And folks, please — he was never the “anti-war” candidate. Come on. He considered Iraq to be the “wrong war” — a respectable position to take — and that the “right war” was Afghanistan. Yeah, I have a beef with his timeline stuff, but at least he’s left a hole in that wide enough to drive a Humvee through. He’s been pragmatic about it. And yeah, maybe he got out-toughed by the French, but that’s a GOOD thing. Let France feel like the knight in shining armor for once. Maybe it will be less surly in the future.

But seriously, the guy just looks better all the time — from an UnParty perspective.

Finally, rap that a chap like me is culturally prepared to get into

Really enjoyed this item in The Wall Street Journal this morning:

In ‘Chap-Hop,’ Gentlemen Rappers Bust Rhymes About Tea, Cricket

Just Like in Hip-Hop, British MCs Feud Over Styles: Waistcoat vs. Pith Helmet

BRIGHTON, England—For some British rappers, nothing goes better with laying down rhymes than a gin and tonic and a Sunday afternoon stroll…

Professor Elemental, a self-styled “Steampunk Mad Professor” and leading chap-hop MC, is one of its top exponents. He is easy to spot in the Marwood Café here, even amid its décor of spectacle-wearing stuffed owls and dismembered mannequins. Clad in Victorian-explorer garb, complete with pith helmet, he is eager to talk about his planned trip across the Atlantic.

“I’m going to break America, and ride it like a pony,” Elemental—real name Paul Alborough—explains while sipping English Breakfast. “Global domination, then a nice sit down and a cup of tea.”

First though, Mr. Alborough, 35 years old, has a score to settle. In doing so, he is subverting another hip-hop staple: the feud, or beef. Biggie and Tupac, Lil’ Kim and Nicki Minaj—rivalries are as important to the genre as rapping is.

Elemental’s rival is an hour’s train ride away in London: Mr. B, The Gentleman Rhymer—real name Jim Burke—is backstage at the Wam Bam Club, a burlesque nightclub in the Café de Paris…

In the video above, you can see Professor Elemental throwing down some trash talk aimed directly at Mr. B, below.

Finally, hip-hop that I can get into! As comfortable and satisfying as a proper English breakfast!

Unfortunately, after listening to it, I don’t feel any less whitebread than I did before… Oh, well. Stiff upper lip and all that…

Welcome to the Energy Party, Mr. Obama (I hope)

Hope. Change. Energy Party... /2008 file photo

Heard an encouraging report on the radio this morning that I can’t seem to find now online, but there’s this from the WSJ:

WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama, under pressure to respond to rising gas prices, will outline Wednesday a series of initiatives to cut the nation’s reliance on foreign oil, including new initiatives to expand oil production, increase the use of natural gas to power vehicles and increase production of ethanol….

The political heat over energy policy is rising in tandem with the price of gasoline and diesel fuels at filling stations, in a ritual that has become familiar in Washington since the oil price shocks of the mid-1970s. “We’ve been having this conversation for nearly four decades now,” Mr. Obama said during a March 11 news conference. “Every few years, gas prices go up; politicians pull out the same old political playbook, and then nothing changes.”

The White House will cast the new effort, a combination of new ideas and previously announced initiatives, as an effort to deal with the nation’s long-term energy challenge, not just the high gas prices of the moment.

Mr. Obama will put forward an overall goal of reducing oil imports by one third over a decade, with half the reduction from decreasing consumption and half from increasing domestic supply, according to two people briefed by the White House…

And this from the NYT:

WASHINGTON — With gasoline prices rising, oil supplies from the Middle East pinched by political upheaval and growing calls in Congress for expanded domestic oil and gas production, President Obama on Wednesday will set a goal of a one-third reduction in oil imports over the next decade, aides said Tuesday.

The president, in a speech to be delivered at Georgetown University, will say that the United States needs, for geopolitical and economic reasons, to reduce its reliance on imported oil, according to White House officials who provided a preview of the speech on the condition that they not be identified. More than half of the oil burned in the United States today comes from overseas and from Mexico and Canada.

Mr. Obama will propose a mix of measures, none of them new, to help the nation cut down on its thirst for oil. He will point out the nation’s tendency, since the first Arab oil embargo in 1973, to panic when gas prices rise and then fall back into old gas-guzzling habits when they recede.

He will call for a consistent long-term fuel-savings strategy of producing more electric cars, converting trucks to run on natural gas, building new refineries to brew billions of gallons of biofuels and setting new fuel-efficiency standards for vehicles. Congress has been debating these measures for years.

The president will also repeat his assertion that despite the frightening situation at the Fukushima Daiichi reactor complex in Japan, nuclear power will remain an important source of electricity in the United States for decades to come, aides said.

He will respond to members of Congress and oil industry executives who have complained that the administration has choked off domestic oil and gas production by imposing costly new regulations and by blocking exploration on millions of acres of potentially oil-rich tracts both on shore and off.

The administration is not prepared to open new public lands and waters to drilling, officials said, but will use a new set of incentives and penalties to prod industry to develop resources on the lands they already have access to…

Wish I could find the radio report, because it pretty much painted what the president will have to say as being VERY Energy Party. As you may recall I took both Mr. Obama and John McCain to task in 2008 for being unworthy of Energy Party support, however many other virtues the two may have possessed (and as you know, I liked them both — it was the first time ever that both parties nominated my first choices in their respective fields).

But increasingly, Mr. Obama seems to GET IT — that it’s not about keeping gas prices low; it’s not about pleasing the left or the right. It’s about freeing this country from its dependence from foreign oil, for all sorts of economic and geopolitical reasons. Nothing we could do would be more likely to make the nation stronger and healthier.

It’s about being a grownup, and taking the long view.

Semi-exclusive report from our intrepid correspondent in Japan, Hunter Brumfield

As you know, the far-flung news-gathering empire of bradwarthen.com has brought you exclusive reports from Bahrain and Honolulu. We are on the spot while it’s hot. First with the burst. And all the rest of that boastful hyperbole I like to steal from Robert Heinlein.

Now, I bring you a report from Our Man in Tokyo, Hunter Brumfield. Hunter was the editorial page editor at The Jackson Sun in Tennessee when I went to work there in 1975 fresh out of college. He moved to the Far East a quarter-century or so ago, so he is now an old hand. I call him “old hand” because he answered one of my Tweets the other day by reminding me that I should refer to a middle-aged man as another middle-aged man. So there.

Anyway, here’s Hunter’s report:

Friday, March 11, 2:46 pm
Eiko and I were at home when I noticed a light tinkling sound from our “earthquake alarm” — what I jokingly call the Texas cowbell wind chime made for us by my brother-in-law in San Antonio. We keep it inside, with a small collection of other glass chimes, since we don’t want our apartment complex chieftains coming down on us for creating a public nuisance.
I started up my cellphone camera video function, figuring I might catch something interesting. A few moments later the

Hunter Brumfield, and a lady from those parts.

cowbell was loudly clanking, and I realized that this shake was far worse than any I have experienced in my 28 years here, plus nearly 3 years as a child when my father was stationed in Tokyo in the mid-50s. (Back then the lights seemed to go out at the slightest tremor, to my big sister’s and my excited delight.)

This time, the movement quickly built until I found myself dodging wine glasses a cabinet began tossing at me. Here’s the video on You Tube, which also appears in CNN iReports.
The jolting stopped after about 2 minutes. As soon as we could start moving again, the broken glass at my feet — our only damage — was quickly cleaned up and we began watching reports by white-helmeted TV newscasters. We also tried to call Eiko’s mother but the cell network was overwhelmed by callers who like us were checking on their loved ones. (It remained unusable until after midnight, but email, and even local calls over Skype, never failed.) After it was clear the worst was over, Eiko went to her mother’s apartment on foot and found a cheerful but very resolute woman, who, despite her 94 years, had spent the intervening time preparing an earthquake grab bag with food, batteries, and water — including for Eiko and me — and was ready to leave at a moment’s notice.
On TV we were captivated by scenes of vessels of all sizes leaving port in Tokyo and Yokohama. This was easily within 20 minutes of the first jolt, and before long we could see them fighting a strong tsunami surge as they tried to clear the breakwaters. Some could be seen colliding as it was apparent that they had broken free from their moorings with no crew on board.
Other scenes from relatively near us were of burning parking lots of jumbled cars, including on the rooftop of one 11-story building, followed by exploding fuel storage yards near Yokohama, about 30 miles southwest of our home in eastern Tokyo.
Meanwhile, reports started coming in about the devastation that was occurring in Sendai, 140 miles northeast of us. The most dramatic videos came in over the next few days, but sitting there in our living room within an hour of the quake, we were appalled as we watched live aerial video from one helicopter as the black tsunami waves washed over farmland, sweeping everything in their path.
I was quickly contacted by my old newspaper in Jackson, Tn., to relate what had happened to us. We were on the cover the next day, Saturday.
Over the following two days the story focused on finding the dead and helping survivors. These constant reports were interrupted at times by aftershocks — more that 300 of a noticeable size in the first three days, now down to about 10 a day (three so far this morning). When that happens, a loud chime sounds on TV giving usually a 30-second warning before the shaking can be felt by us. Most come from the same general area of the original epicenter. Others, in some ways even more alarmingly, are from a seismically active region about 60 miles on the OTHER side of Tokyo, closer to Mount Fuji. Fuji-san last erupted in 1707, coating Tokyo with ash.
We stayed home and inside, basically forced to by the disruption of rail and subway service that caused many employees to walk home from work (a few people I know more than 10 miles), while others spent the night on the floor of their offices. Temporary stoppages still occur whenever there is another aftershock. Traffic was basically frozen from massive street congestion. Eiko waited several days before walking to our nearest grocery store, “because I don’t want to [contribute to the sense of] panic,” she told me when I suggested we should go. When we finally did, rice, ramen, milk, and bread were completely gone, but most other foods were still available, and the supply has improved since. We still have had no luck getting gas for our car, though we have not really needed it.
Beginning with the weekend the news of the earthquake and the struggle to find survivors began to be supplanted by the immense difficulties bringing the six reactors of the two tsunami-damaged nuclear power plants in Fukushima under control. Efforts to reduce heating of spent fuel rods have been hit and miss. But basically they have made headway, after Tokyo firefighters and Japanese military brought in water-dumping helicopters, heavy deluge equipment, and relief crews to spell the heroic and potentially fatal struggles of plant workers. Highly gratifying assistance has also come from the U.S. military and dog-assisted international search & rescue teams.
As you have probably been hearing, information on what is happening with the Fukushima nuclear reactors has been confusing and incomplete. In my own mind, what we have been getting from CNN and others has been even worse, as commentators fly in — and almost as quickly fly out — try to figure out what is going on, then fill their reports with scary half-truths of their own invention. When I saw my blood pressure hit 214/170 I knew it was time to reduce my dose of CNN — I started referring to Anderson Cooper as “Chicken Little Cooper” after one near-hysterical report* — and now see that I have not been alone in my disgust with the foreign press.
*It seems Chicken Little Cooper left Japan soon after that display, in which he blurted to an “expert” he was interviewing back in the States, “Well, should WE get out of here? What should WE do?!”. I used to like him.
So that brings us now to Friday, 14 days later.
Friday, March 25, 9:30 am
Despite what we’ve been told in the news, a “radioactive cloud” has not [yet] swept down on Tokyo, much less Seattle, there is no “mass evacuation by foreigners,” and no “nuclear explosion.” And while a few people I know have taken unplanned holidays to Hawaii and elsewhere, most folks I know have elected to stay put. Several extremely helpful websites and maillists have sprung up, including by some foreigners who have their own amateur monitoring stations that appear to confirm the official (thus less believable) government radiation reports.
These monitors all show that radioactivity in Tokyo IS slightly up, but so far well under the amounts considered dangerous, even for long-term cancer risk. People flying to escape danger will receive much more radiation exposure from high-altitude cosmic rays, etc. than if they had remained here. My favorite comparison suggests that you already receive some exposure from your “hot” spouse sleeping next to you, and from eating (imported) bananas.
In terms of certain foods, like spinach and milk in which low levels of radioactivity have been found, the government has banned their sale from the affected area. Even if you did imbibe some, it is not enough to cause any ill effects. One friend sent me a link to a blog post that said quaffing red wine is thought to reduce the effects of radiation exposure. Any excuse, in my mind!
[The bulk of this was written before the sobering news yesterday that Tokyo health officials were cautioning that pregnant and nursing mothers and infants should not drink tap water (nor formula prepared with it, in the case of babies) due to the newly determined presence of radioactivity. While this is yet thought to be within safe limits for adults, the long-term danger to infants could be quite serious, almost double the limit considered safe for newborns. This morning Japanese newspapers said the “quarantine” against drinking Tokyo tap water had been suspended.]
My favorite part of all this, to the extent that anything at all has has been comforting, is how well the Japanese people have coped with a combined disaster of this scale. Any one of these horrendous events — the earthquake and its aftershocks, the tsunami that has left as many as 23,000 dead and missing, the out-of-control nuclear plants —  would have likely caused massive panic in other countries. (In fact, the only scenes of public panic I have caught were videoed in China of buyers clamoring for iodized salt thought to reduce the ill effects of radiation that might blow their way.)
Here, friends and family have told me that where they were forced to spend that first scary night on bare concrete floors there were no displays of anger or fear, only acts of kindness.
I love what that says about not just Japanese, but about what we ALL can potentially rise to under similarly trying circumstances.
Meanwhile, happy to say, our Texas earthquake alarm has on the most part gone quiet.
Hunter

Oh, and to be perfectly honest, he originally wrote this for someone from his high school class back in Texas. That’s why it’s just semi-exclusive.

Excellent report, Hunter. And awesome video.

Standing up for civilization, harrumph

Ever since the WSJ added a third daily opinion page (when they followed the rest of the industry and went to narrower pages to save newsprint), at about the same time we were cutting back on pages at The State in my desperate bid to get through bad times without cutting people (see how well that worked out?), I have…

Wait. I got lost in the multiple parentheticals… oh, yeah… ever since then, I’ve been hooked on the daily book review that runs all the way down the right-hand side of that page, Mondays through Fridays. For the first time in I don’t know when, I go into Barnes & Noble and am well familiar with pretty much everything on the “new arrival” shelves. And I’ve always got a list of books I want when Father’s Day, my birthday and Christmas roll around. To the point that I’m backed up on reading, and so intimidated by the stack of new books that I avoid the issue by rereading the Aubrey/Maturin series instead (I’m now on my fifth time through The Fortune of War).

But here’s another one I might have to request and add to the shelf, reviewed in today’s paper:

Among academics, the word “civilization” has long had a sinister ring to it, carrying associations of elitism and luxury. Worse, it is linked to imperialism, having provided Europeans with the justification for their far-flung conquests in centuries past—and, these days, for endless self-flagellation.

With “In Search of Civilization,” John Armstrong, the resident philosopher at the Melbourne Business School in Australia, sets out to restore the reputation of a word that, to him, represents something infinitely precious and life-sustaining, a source of strength and inspiration. The great civilizations, he says, provide “a community of maturity in which across the ages individuals try to help each other cope with the demands of mortality.”

As he makes clear, his purpose is not to provide a history of various civilizations or to update Samuel Huntington’s seminal 1996 book on the post-Cold War world, “The Clash of Civilizations,” though he cites Huntington’s conclusion that today’s real conflict is between civilization and barbarism. Mr. Armstrong wishes to convey what the idea means to him personally…

Indeed. Too bloody right. The real conflict — at home and abroad, is between civilization and barbarism. And it so often seems that civilization is losing, especially on the domestic front. And most especially in our politics, increasingly defined by mutually exclusive factions screaming pointlessly at each other.

I mean, what’s the world coming to when a guy who is supposedly all dedicated to having a civil blog starts using modifiers like “bloody?” I ask you…

Anyway, the book sounds interesting, and possibly edifying. I like the ending. After lamenting the state of the humanities in academia, the review concludes:

Our artists, too, have failed: The author sees Andy Warhol, Damien Hirst, Jeff Koons and their ilk as representatives of a decadent cultural elite that insists on provocation and newness as the only criteria for judging art. “Mockery, irony and archness,” Mr. Armstrong says, “is not what we need.” What is needed is hope and confidence. The treasures are all there to be rediscovered, if only we would bother.

Indeed, again. And harrumph, say I.

Here’s why “left” and “right” are all one to me

Actually, what this is is ONE reason why the distinctions between left and right — which seem to mean so much (and of course, I would say far too much) to so many in this country — are of little concern, and NO appeal, to me:

The Few, the Proud, the Anti-Libya NFZ Republicans

Posted Monday, March 21, 2011 12:31 PM | By David Weigel

The Republicans who out-and-out oppose attacks on Libya without congressional authorization are few, and their names are not surprising anyone who follows debates over war funding. Here’s freshman Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich, who was backed by Ron Paul last year.

It’s not enough for the President simply to explain military actions in Libya to the American people, after the fact, as though we are serfs. When there is no imminent threat to our country, he cannot launch strikes without authorization from the American people, through our elected Representatives in Congress. No United Nations resolution or congressional act permits the President to circumvent the Constitution.

I love that libertarian indignation in “as though we are serfs.” He means it, too. To people of certain ideological stripe, we are all right on the verge of serfdom, every minute.

Here’s the president’s letter ‘splaining things to Congress, by the way. The 119th such letter sent by a president.

Beyond the serf stuff, do some of those phrases sound exactly like the antiwar left to you? Yeah, to me, too. But there’s nothing surprising about it. I think I shared the story with you recently of one of my wife’s leftist professors who supported George Wallace because he’d never get us involved in a Vietnam.

Now, for you Paulistas: Do I not care about the Constitution? Of course I do. And before this nation actually goes to real WAR with an actual other NATION,  the kind of debate that leads to the declaration of war is a good thing, and the Framers were wise to include the requirement — particularly given how weak and vulnerable this nation was in those days, and how ruinous a war with one of the great powers could have been.

But of course, that very generation, and the first president of the limited-national-gummint party, Thomas Jefferson, did not see such a declaration as necessary to deal with the Barbary Pirates. You know, the shores of Tripoli?

They DID think it meet for Congress to authorize the president to act — as Congress did before the Iraq invasion, and before the Gulf War.

If anything, the issue here is whether Obama should have paused long enough to wait for such a formal authorization in this case. Did he act too soon? Did he cave too quickly to Hillary telling him to “man up” and act? I don’t think so, given the circumstances — the dire situation on the ground in Libya, the fact that the Brits and the French (yes, the French!) were ready to go. But frankly, I didn’t think about it before just now. Should we have had a big national debate between the UN resolution and action (regardless of whether it then would have been too late)?

What do y’all think?

Graham grateful for Obama’s “strong women”

Check out Political Wire’s Quote of the Day:

“I don’t know how many people have died as we wait to do something. Thank God for strong women in the Obama administration.”

— Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), quoted by NBC News, on how it was President Obama’s female advisers that prevailed in arguments to take military action in Libya.

Here’s more from the item that came from:

NBC’s Andrea Mitchell reported Saturday night on the internal debate about the decision to go into Libya. “In the end, it became the women foreign policy advisers against the men. Although Hillary Clinton initially resisted the idea of a no-fly zone, she was persuaded at the beginning of this week by the Arab League’s endorsement of military action, and she had intense meetings with the Arab League leaders and a Libyan opposition leader this week. She actually joined U.N. ambassador Susan Rice and two other women in the National Security Council, who had been arguing for some time for more aggressive action in persuading the president on Tuesday. This is a rare instance, by the way, of Clinton going up against Defense Secretary Bob Gates and the National Security Adviser Tom Donilon among other men in the White House who were much more cautious about this.”

To that point, here was more Lindsey Graham on FOX: “I don’t know how many people have died as we wait to do something. Thank God for strong women in the Obama administration.”

Presumably, since he’s for strong women, Lindsey won’t get any overwrought letters from Eleanor Kitzman

Virtual Front Page, Friday, March 18, 2011

Had a lot of things I wanted to blog about today — I want to share with you some thoughts from that really interesting conference at Furman in which I participated last night, for instance — but wasn’t able to get to them. I will as soon as I can. In the meantime, here’s the news at this (later than usual) hour:

  1. Obama Warns Libya, but Attacks Go On (NYT) — Of all the coverage out there, I chose the NYT one because that headline sums up  the situation most neatly and comprehensively. What has happened in the last 24 hours, starting with the UN resolution, followed by the transparently cynical call for a “ceasefire” by Qaddafi (the perfect way of trying to fake a newly-resolute world into holding off just long enough to let him finish crushing the opposition), and continuing with the president’s ultimatum (“in one of his most forceful statements as president, Mr. Obama said that his demands were not negotiable”), has not just been news. It’s been history. But the sweep of it is captured well in those few words: Obama Warns Libya, but Attacks Go On.
  2. U.S., allied forces converge for Libya attack (WashPost) — For the president to be able to use the language he used, you already have to have forces in motion.
  3. In Libyan capital, a revolution crushed (WashPost) — In Tripoli, Qaddafi has won, and this is what that looks like.
  4. Japan raises nuclear alert level (BBC) — The drama of what’s happening in the world right now is underlined by the fact that this only the second-biggest story of the day.
  5. Yemeni Forces Fire On Demonstrators; Dozens Killed (NPR) — This sudden escalation reminds us it’s not just Libya and Bahrain right now.
  6. Ethics staff: Ard improperly spent on meals, trips (AP) — This would have made the front yesterday, but I didn’t have one. Here it is now.

You know,  folks, news has been my business for several decades, and for a lot of that time, part of my job was looking at the totality of the news, seeing the full range of it as a whole and trying to assess the relative importance of the top developments. For instance, at two previous newspapers, in Tennessee and Kansas, I had responsibility not only for deciding what went on the front page each day, but the relatively play of each story. Then, as editorial page editor at The State, there was the need to look at the whole range and decide what it was most important to comment upon.

And in all that time, I don’t quite recall a run of earth-shaking stories on multiple international fronts quite like this. I mean, yeah, you might have ONE international story dominate for awhile, such as the collapse of the Berlin Wall or 9/11 or the Iraq invasion, but not this much at once. It’s rather awe-inspiring. Yeah, most of them are related — Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, Yemen, the UN suddenly having a consensus on military action that we haven’t seen in a long time — although each development is different in profound ways, with different implications for our country and the world. But to have all of that going on, AND a leading industrialized nation like Japan brought practically to its knees by a paroxysm of the Earth itself… it’s all kind of awe-inspiring.

Consequently, there’s almost a sense of whiplash when you step from the international to the state or local. Yeah, it’s a big deal in a political town for the lt. gov. to be accused of misspending campaign funds, but it seems almost embarrassingly trivial against the scope of what’s happening in the world (as does the latest pettiness by our governor). Similarly, the “titanic” struggle in Washington between Dems and Repubs over federal spending just sort of fades into the background.

Unusual situation, which is a rather silly understatement, now that I type it…

Graham’s modest proposal: Let’s be as bold as the French

This just in from our senior U.S. senator:

Graham Presses Obama Administration to Establish Libyan No-Fly Zone

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today made this statement on the establishment of a No-Fly zone over Libya and what United States inaction means for our own national security.  Graham is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

“One test in foreign policy – at least be as bold as the French.  Unfortunately, when it comes to Libya we’re failing that test.

“The French and British are right to call for a no-fly zone over Libya, and they are correct to recognize the forces opposing Gaddafi.  I’m very disappointed by the indecisiveness of the Administration in the face of tyranny.  They are allowing the cries of the Libyan people to fall on deaf ears.

“Allowing Gaddafi to regain control over Libya through force – without any meaningful effort to support the Libyan people – will create grave consequences for our own national security.

“The biggest winner of an indecisive America refusing to stand up to dictators who kill their own people, will be the Iranian regime.  The Iranian regime has already used force against their own people when they demanded freedom.  If we allow Gaddafi to regain power through force of arms, it is inconceivable to me that the Iranians will ever take our efforts to control their nuclear desires seriously.

“The world is watching, and time is beginning to run short.  The Obama Administration should join with the international community to form a no-fly zone while it still matters.

“Then-Senator Obama relished the opportunity to label Iraq as President Bush’s war.  If he does not act decisively in Libya, I believe history will show that the Obama Administration owned the results of the Gaddafi regime from 2011 forward.

“Their refusal to act will go down as one of the great mistakes in American foreign policy history, and will have dire consequences for our own national security in the years to come.  I truly fear the decisions they are making today will come back to haunt us.”

#####

Yeah, that’s kind of what I thought the other day, when I saw that the French and the Brits were taking the lead on trying to coordinate an international response to try to stop Qaddafi from continuing to kick the stuffing out of the Libyan people who have risked their lives to fight our enemy for us (and, of course, for themselves and their country).

I don’t know what the right thing to do is — such things are complex — but the no-fly zone certainly seems like a measured response that would carry some likelihood of doing good. Unlike, say, boots on the ground, which Sen. Graham draws the line at.

Let’s get our money down, now: Who will be the first to criticize the senator’s common-sense assertion? An antiwar liberal Democrat, or one of those extremists in his own party who are pleased to trash the “RINO” at every opportunity. Cue the Jeopardy music…

Caricaturing Qaddafi. Or Qaricaturing Chaddafi… (how DO you spell “caricature,” anyway?)

Thought this was interesting over on the NYT site:

Before the Libyan opposition began retreatingbefore forces loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, Finbarr O’Reilly of Reuters took account of the wealth of anti-Qaddafi graffiti and other graphic expressions of popular anger, which include some anti-Semitic sentiments. He wrote to Lens:

Like many dictators, Qaddafi carefully controlled how his image was used, often portraying himself as a deity or beloved leader. With the rebellion, however, freedom of expression in rebel-controlled areas means that ridicule has become a key weapon in the fight against the climate of fear that has long gripped the country. Anti-Qaddafi caricatures and graffiti have sprung up across cities like Benghazi, most of them portraying him in an unflattering light.

Those first few words give me pause… Before the Libyan opposition began retreating…

I wonder, was this little eruption of irreverence toward the Libyan dictator destined to be short-lived? If so, view the images while you can…

The images themselves, in some cases, betray an elaborate complexity one doesn’t often see in political caricature, at least not in this country. Listen to me, like I’m an art critic. They’re actually sort of hard to characterize. Sort of Ralph Steadman without the drugs, or something… or maybe with different drugs… See what you think.

Update on protests from our man in Bahrain

This was today...

First we hear from our Hawaii correspondent on the day’s biggest story, now the Mideast. In all my years in the MSM, I never had such a far-flung “staff” as this.

This is from my same correspondent — an executive with an American company doing business over there — who contributed this earlier report from his high-rise apartment point of view.

Here’s his update:

Thought you might like to see the latest on the protest and demonstrations around my building . The protest photo was around 2:00AM this morning and the march into the Pearl Square below me is happening as we speak.  Notice in the black are all women , numbering in the thousands now. Also notice at the top of the photo the main road is now covered by protesters.

You can clearly see the ladies in their black robes if you click on the image and zoom in; I intentionally left the files large so you could do that.

More as I have it.

... and this was last night.

Burl reports in from Hawaii: “that bullet we dodged on Oahu parted our hair”

In case you didn’t see his comment on the previous post, our intrepid Pacific correspondent Burl Burlingame (Radford HS Class of ’71) has checked in with this report:

Man, that bullet we dodged on Oahu parted our hair. The surges on Maui and the Big Island were pretty bad, but at least they weren’t carrying that tumbling wall of debris that flattened communities in Japan. We got feet-wet on the neighbor islands — looks like more than a 12-foot surge in Kailua-Kona. The roads there are broken up.
Lots of small-boat and wharf damage on Oahu, but that’s about it. And we’re all sleepy as hell. The critical period was 3 a.m. to 7 a.m. when you had to be ready to run for it.

Good to hear that Oahu escaped unscathed. And I’m sorry that I carelessly speculated earlier that, given the hour of the earthquake, Burl might have slept through the crisis. Of COURSE he was on deck and attending to duty; we should have expected no less of him.

Obama: Ready To Tap Oil Reserve If Needed — which it ISN’T, not by a long shot

The president at this afternoon's presser. (Official White House Photo by Lawrence Jackson)

Well, gasoline prices are rising toward levels that might, just might, cause some of us to face reality and acknowledge that it’s not a good idea at all to be so desperately dependent on cheap oil from crazy-dangerous parts of the world, and what are our elected leaders — Democrats and Republicans — doing?

Why, what they always do — pandering. But there’s pandering, and then there’s pandering.

The GOP is busily blaming Barack “Root of All Evil” Obama. The president himself is responding by saying, at a press conference today, that he’s prepared to tap the strategic oil reserve, if needed.

But that last part is key, and his way out as a rational man. It’s like his promise to “start” withdrawing troops from Afghanistan by a certain date, which in no way commits him to draw down dangerously before it’s wise to do so. Obama’s smart; he’s not going to pander so far that he commits himself to something irresponsible. This is a quality that he has demonstrated time and again, and which has greatly reassured me ever since he beat my (slightly) preferred candidate for the presidency. This is the quality — or one of them — that made me glad to say so often, back in 2008, that for the first time in my editorial career, both major-party candidates for president were ones I felt good about (and both of whom we endorsed, in their respective primaries).

It’s certainly more defensible than Mr. Boehner’s reflexive partisan bashing. And it’s WAY more defensible than Al “Friend of the Earth” Gore asking Bill Clinton to tap the reserve to help him win the 2000 election.

To quote from the report I just saw on the NPR site:

Obama said he’s prepared to tap the U.S. emergency oil reserve if needed. But as gas prices climbed toward $4 a gallon, the president said the U.S. must adopt a long-term strategy of conservation and domestic production to wean itself off foreign oil.

“We’ve been having this conversation for nearly four decades now. Every few years gas prices go up, politicians pull out the same political playbook, and nothing changes,” Obama said.

“I don’t want to leave this to the next president,” he said.

Some in Congress have been calling on Obama to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And the president made clear Friday that that was an option, although he indicated he wasn’t yet prepared to exercise it. He declined to specify the conditions that would trigger the step, but said it was teed up and could happen quickly if he chooses to call for it….

His threshold, based on what he said, is a Hurricane Katrina, or worse. Personally, I’d raise the bar a bit higher than that, but he’s on the right track, trying to set a high standard. (You make a disruption like Katrina the standard, then next thing you know, you’re tempted to lower it to, say, a BP oil spill — and that’s not the direction you want to go in.)

The key word here is “strategic,” a threshold that I would think wouldn’t be crossed until we have a sustained inability to GET oil to power our economy — something we came close to, in spots, in recent crises. But it seems to me one only turns to such “strategic” options as a last resort. The president should be “prepared to tap the U.S. emergency oil reserve if needed” in the same sense he is expected to be prepared to crack open the “football” and activate the codes for going nuclear. OK, maybe that’s a bit extreme, but you get where I’m going with this. It’s something we hope and pray never happens, and we do our best to pursue policies that avoid such an eventuality.

By the way, back to that excerpt above. I particularly love “the president said the U.S. must adopt a long-term strategy of conservation and domestic production to wean itself off foreign oil.” Earlier today, I disparaged the president for being no Energy Party man. (I was essentially repeating an observation I made about both him and McCain in a July 6, 2008, column.)

But maybe I was wrong. If he keeps saying things like that, he may deserve the Energy nomination in 2012 after all.

THE EARTHQUAKE OFF JAPAN

Image from the United States Geological Survey at 5:46 a.m. Zulu time, or 46 minutes after midnight here on the East Coast.

This is just to give y’all some resources, and someplace to comment if you feel so moved. The picture of what happened — and is happening — is still taking shape. Hawaii seems to be out of trouble — although I’d appreciate an on-the-spot report on that from our own Pacific correspondent, Burl Burlingame.

Personally, on something like this, I tend to turn first to the Los Angeles Times. Of the largest papers in this country, that’s the one most likely to have the best reporting and perspective on developments in the Pacific Rim (that’s pretty intuitive, of course, but I had it confirmed back in my days as an editor responsible for the front page, and the national desk, back in Wichita, when I had to study all of our news services to see who had the best take on each national/international story).

But here are several you can follow:

That’s probably all you need right now. Comment away.

Have some fun in the Sistine Chapel

The guy who did the ceiling.

Before I forget about it totally — go check out this cool interactive Vatican site that Burl brought our attention to in a comment the other day. You can spin it around 360 degrees in three dimensions, and do so all sorts of different ways by changing the mouse

setting down in the left-hand corner (where you’ll also find the buttons that let you zoom in and out).

Very cool. And much cheaper than a trip to Rome. I enjoyed it, anyway.

Michelangelo did a pretty awesome job. I wonder what he would have charged, say, to do my TV room?

From the middle of things in Bahrain

Thought y’all might find this interesting. I’ll apologize in advance, though, for not using names. That was a condition of my using the material.

These images are from a Westerner who works for an American company in Bahrain. He lives right smack in the middle of protest central, which is having a big impact on his daily routine. He’s been keeping people at the home office apprised of the situation. When he was asked yesterday by someone back home whether he was “having to schedule your leaving and returning around the demonstrations and are you having to stay in once you arrive,” he answered as follows:

Yes and yes… security posted a message to get to the villas before 5:00, otherwise it will be almost impossible unlessyou park at the mall and walk a mile or more through the crowd. It clears out around 1:00AM. I took this at 4:15 PM today and the bigger crowds will not assemble for another couple of hours. They have live music, a wedding, food vendors, and speeches ongoing. The noise even at 36 floors above the ground is crazy…Once I get in I cannot leave until very early the next day….As long as it stays peaceful it’s  actually a pretty amazing spectacle to witness. I have hotel lined up should it turn violent again.

I’ve kept the picture files big so that you can zoom in and see large televisions, tents and food vendors, all contributing to a sort of celebratory, tailgating atmosphere. The picture above was taken out the window of his 36th-floor apartment.

Today, he sent the picture below and the following additional message:

Got a good show going on down below this afternoon. They are marching from the Ministry office downtown which was a planned and scheduled event. It’s very peaceful just very noisy and traffic is blocked as far as you can see in that direction. Glad I stocked up this morning. Also glad the plants are on the other end of the island and our roads to the port are in the other direction as well.

This doesn’t give you the whole picture of what’s going on there, but it does give you one man’s view.

112 ways to spell ‘Gadhafi,’ or whatever that goofball’s name is

I’m almost positive that in the early years of my career, the Associated Press spelled the last name of the dictator of Libya with a “K.” (Or was it a “Q?” It’s been a long time.) Then, at some point the AP Stylebook switched to “Gadhafi.” I sorta kinda remember this because back in the 80s my responsibilities as news editor at The Wichita Eagle-Beacon (since simplified back to The Wichita Eagle) included supervising the national desk (which dealt with national and international news), as well as the copy desk (the final arbiters of how things were spelled in the paper).

And every paper I’ve ever worked at conformed, more or less (there were sometimes local exceptions), to AP style. But some larger news organizations, just to be different and arrogant, have maintained their own, separate style bibles. And it sometimes seems that every one of them asserts its individuality by spelling Col. Moammar’s name a different way.

Me, I’ve been spelling it any way I have felt like spelling it at any given moment here on the blog. Because, after 35 years of following arbitrary rules invented to establish uniformity, I can do whatever I want now. (Freedom, Baby!) My only obligation to you, the reader, is to ensure that you know about whom I’m writing. And there are various ways to communicate that, mostly having to do with context.

And why not do whatever feels right, when there is no consensus among the MSM?

For instance:

As mentioned, the AP spells it “Gadhafi.” Now, anyway. (It’s frustrating that my Google searches have not yet produced the old spelling.)

The New York Times, with its usual “this is the way WE do it, so that, by God, is the way it’s done” manner, spells it “Muammar el-Qaddafi.” Note that they don’t even do the first name the usual way. On subsequent references, they drop the “el-” and go with “Colonel Qaddafi.”

The Times (as in the real Times, of London), spells it “Muammar Gaddafi.” The Jerusalem Post agrees. So, amazingly, does the BBC (an emerging consensus, where I thought there was none?).

The Washington Post agrees with The Times on the last name, but not the first: “Moammar Gaddafi.”

NPR, which isn’t a print medium anyway, sticks to AP style, apparently: “Moammar Gadhafi.”

But folks, that’s just the beginning. ABC, apparently aiming to make print media look ridiculous (which isn’t hard when it comes to something like this), has compiled a list of 112 ways to spell the guy’s name. I’ll give you a few of them, and you can go to the story on the web for the rest:

  • Qaddafi, Muammar
  • Al-Gathafi, Muammar
  • al-Qadhafi, Muammar
  • Al Qathafi, Mu’ammar
  • Al Qathafi, Muammar
  • El Gaddafi, Moamar
  • El Kadhafi, Moammar
  • El Kazzafi, Moamer
  • El Qathafi, Mu’Ammar
  • Gadafi, Muammar
  • Gaddafi, Moamar
  • Gadhafi, Mo’ammar
  • Gathafi, Muammar
  • Ghadafi, Muammar
  • Ghaddafi, Muammar
  • Ghaddafy, Muammar
  • Gheddafi, Muammar
  • Gheddafi, Muhammar
  • Kadaffi, Momar
  • Kad’afi, Mu`amar al- 20
  • Kaddafi, Muamar
  • Kaddafi, Muammar
  • Kadhafi, Moammar
  • Kadhafi, Mouammar
  • Kazzafi, Moammar
  • Khadafy, Moammar
  • Khaddafi, Muammar
  • Moamar al-Gaddafi
  • Moamar el Gaddafi
  • Moamar El Kadhafi
  • Moamar Gaddafi
  • Moamer El Kazzafi
  • Mo’ammar el-Gadhafi
  • Moammar El Kadhafi
  • Mo’ammar Gadhafi
  • Moammar Kadhafi
  • Moammar Khadafy…

That last one, before I stopped to keep myself out of Fair Use trouble, is awfully close to the way I think the AP used to do it. But I can’t say for sure.

So now you know. That is to say, you know that nobody knows.