CenterFeud

The Iraqi people take charge of their destiny

I woke up this morning to headlines in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune on Iraq's critical elections of the "Damning But" variety: "Initial turnout light" and "Minnesotans not optimistic about Iraq's prospects" and feared the worst. But of course, the turnout numbers were from the first hour of polling and the opinions of my fellow Minneostans, while interesting, were not really relevant here. What mattered was: what had the Iraqis done in the hours since the newspaper had published its downbeat assessment? Were they turning their backs on the elections as just another made-in-the-USA artifact of the Bush administration's occupation, or were they viewing their first real vote in over 30 years as an historic opportunity to defy the terrorists and take control of their own country and destiny?

So naturally I took to the Internet to find out the latest, both from MSM sources and bloggers whose perspectives I value. And what did I find? A 72% turnout, despite death threats. I'd say that's a pretty resounding vote of confidence by the Iraqis in their electoral process. Here's a first-hand account from bloggers Omar and Mohammad of Iraq the Model:

We had all kinds of feelings in our minds while we were on our way to the ballot box except one feeling that never came to us, that was fear.

We could smell pride in the atmosphere this morning; everyone we saw was holding up his blue tipped finger with broad smiles on the faces while walking out of the center.

I couldn't think of a scene more beautiful than that.

From the early hours of the morning, People filled the street to the voting center in my neighborhood; youths, elders, women and men. Women's turn out was higher by the way. And by 11 am the boxes where I live were almost full!

Anyone watching that scene cannot but have tears of happiness, hope, pride and triumph.

The sounds of explosions and gunfire were clearly heard, some were far away but some were close enough to make the windows of the center shake but no one seemed to care about them as if the people weren't hearing these sounds at all.

I saw an old woman that I thought would get startled by the loud sound of a close explosion but she didn't seem to care, instead she was busy verifying her voting station's location as she found out that her name wasn't listed in this center.

How can I describe it!? Take my eyes and look through them my friends, you have supported the day of Iraq's freedom and today, Iraqis have proven that they're not going to disappoint their country or their friends.

Is there a bigger victory than this? I believe not.

And here's Alaa of The Mesopotamian:

I bow in respect and awe to the men and women of our people who, armed only with faith and hope are going to the polls under the very real threats of being blown to pieces. These are the real braves; not the miserable creatures of hate who are attacking one of the noblest things that has ever happened to us. Have you ever seen anything like this? Iraq will be O.K. with so many brave people, it will certainly O.K.; I can say no more just now; I am just filled with pride and moved beyond words. People are turning up not only under the present threat to polling stations but also under future threats to themselves and their families; yet they are coming, and keep coming. Behold the Iraqi people; now you know their true metal.

I had suspected as much, based on the pattern we saw last October in Afghanistan. Despite the naysayers and fear-mongers, the Afghans demonstrated that, given the opportunity - even in the face of bloodthirsty thugs bent on denying that opportunity - people will turn out in droves to assert their right to self-determination.

It's almost as if the Iraqis take all that Bush rhetoric about democracy seriously, and are willing to risk their lives for those ideals. Now, if only we who are fortunate enough to live in democratic societies would start taking them at their word and support their efforts to build a free society on the ruins of Saddam's nightmarish police state.

UPDATE: For ongoing posts on the Iraqi elections and follow-up, see Friends of Democracy.

NR lauds PBS Castro bio

No, that's not a misprint. Cathy Seipp of National Review takes a look at PBS' upcoming biography of Fidel Castro and finds lots to like:

The latest sign that PBS may be indeed moving away from reflexive lefty politics is its hardheaded and compelling new documentary Fidel Castro, which premieres Jan. 31 and is the first non-American biography in the network’s American Experience series. (As executive producer Mark Samuels pointed out at the PBS news conference, an argument can be made that Castro, with his half-century-long "impact on American history," is an American experience, besides being "also a tremendous story.")

Veteran documentarian Adriana Bosch clearly shows the appeal of a charismatic revolutionary like Castro to a populace suffering from the oppressive Batista regime, but refuses to sentimentalize the cigar-smoking, iconic leader they got as a replacement. "It is the tragic story of a nation who saw a messiah in just a man," she says of her film, which doesn’t flinch from detailing the brutal reality beneath Castro’s charm: 500 Bastistianos tried and executed in less than three months, 20,000 people arrested after the Bay of Pigs, and so on.

Even after his death, Castro is sure to remain an enduring icon of the 20th century. Charismatic, ruthless, and so ideologically driven that it turns out that during the Cuban Missile Crisis even the Soviets thought he was crazy, as Seipp notes:

Timothy Naftali, a University of Virginia professor and co-author of One Hell of a Gamble: Khrushchev, Castro and Kennedy, 1958-1964, describes in the film just why Khrushchev thought Castro, who’d sent him a letter during those tense days in 1962, was crazy.

"Ultimately, what the letter says is, ‘Nikita, if you have to use nuclear weapons against the United States to defend my country, and even if that means the Americans will retaliate by blowing up my country, do it for the sake of international socialism," Naftali said at the news conference. "It's a remarkable document. It scared the hell out of the Soviets...and we only learned this a few years ago."

To many people in the world Castro is a heroic figure, especially in Latin America and Europe where leftist politics are more mainstream than they are in the US (I expect many of these countries would have a somewhat different take had Cuba pointed nukes in their direction). But Cuba under Castro's socialist regime is essentially frozen in a holding pattern, and people who have visited Cuba note that it's like travelling back to the 1950's or early '60s. When Castro finally dies, or is too old to lead, it's widely expected that his brother Raul will assume power, which will not represent any significant ideological change. But as with the passing of Yasser Arafat, the mere departure of Fidel and his associated baggage could provide the impetus to start down a new path to normalized US relations with an emerging 21st century Cuba that may yet find its own way to democracy.

"Cliff Notes" to the Inaugural

For those who thought Bush's inaugural was too focused on high-minded ideals (all that stuff about "freedom" y'know), Scrappleface points us to the Cliff Notes version of Bush's speech:

"We want freedom everywhere, not because we're crazy dreamers, but because governments held accountable to their people don't launch wars against each other. In the good old days, we could sit back and watch as tyrants tortured the helpless and fortified their arsenals. A rifle in the Middle East, or Asia, was no threat to our shores. Today, a man carrying a briefcase could wipe out millions of Americans in a single afternoon. We can't eliminate the sinful urges of crazed men, but we can help oppressed people to dump their dictators. Kill the snake by cutting off its head."

Sure it's parody. But it's wiser and more perceptive than most of the "analysis" being churned out about the significance of Bush's address. Read it all.

Two weeks in the Reserves

The Israeli Defense Force (IDF) Reserves, that is, on patrol in the West Bank. A must-see photo-essay with some images that I can pretty much guarantee will never be published anywhere else. Doesn't fit the storyline.

(Via Little Green Footballs)

Reaching the "Rinse" Cycle of Violence

Bill Roggio debunks the "cycle of violence" meme that has become a predictable cliche in any discussion of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict:

The problem with the cycle of volence meme is that it implies Israel, and not the Palestinians, is the origin of violence in the conflict, and excuses Palestinian terror attacks against Israeli citizens. The logic that flows from accepting the veracity of the cycle of violence goes something like this: “The attack on the bat-mitzvah / university / pizza shop / restaurant / bus / prayer gathering was horrendous, but Israel has to take responsibility for uprooting olive trees, building the fence, closing borders, conducting searches, building settlements and razing homes of the families of militants. If Israel would just stop these actions, the Palestinians would not have to resort to such measures.” In essence, the Cyclists are stating the violence is the fault of the Israelis and they are getting what they deserve.

The Cyclists apply moral equivalence to the Israeli – Palestinian conflict. Israeli responses to terror attacks are considered to be just as heinous as the deliberate targeting of Israeli citizens. They ignore the motives of some actions, such as the destruction of the homes of Palestinians, the destruction or seizure of farm land and the construction of the fence. Actions such as destroying olive groves are taken to remove known mortar and rocket firing sites of Palestinian terrorists. Homes are demolished to remove known smuggling tunnel entrancess, weapons factories, meeting places and supply depots. Both of these actions are undertaken with the idea of punishing those who cooperated. The message to the Palestinians is, if you don’t want your home destroyed or crops uprooted, do not allow terrorists to use your property to attack Israel. And do not encourage your sons and daughters to martyr themselves. The security fence was designed to stop the infiltration of suicide bombers into Israel proper, and has been successful. While they possess the region's most powerful military, the Israelis have been remarkably restrained in their actions against Palestinians. The Israelis take great pains to minimize the death of Palestinian civilians, while the Palestinians intentionally target Israeli citizens. Short of genocide, what are the Israelis to do if the Palestinians will not police their own?

The solution, says Roggio, lies with the Palestinians themselves:

Until the Palestinians accept the fact that terrorist attacks will only worsen their situation, they are doomed to live in a Palestinian induced cycle of self destruction. In order for the cycle to be broken, the Palestinians must reach the “rinse” cycle; they must clean house and purge the terrorists that refuse to accept a negotiated solution to the issue of Palestinian statehood and Israel’s right to exist. The belief that peace can be negotiated while the Palestinians continue to advocate the destruction of Israel and support terrorist attacks is misguided at best.

Of course, the Palestinian leadership has no incentive to reach the "rinse" cycle so long as supposedly enlightened nations in Europe persist in demonizing Israel for defending itself - even for constructing a protective barrier to prevent terrorist infiltration. Many in the West hold out hope that the recent election of Mahmoud Abbas represents a new opportunity for peace. Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes is not sanguine:

Mr. Abbas shows tactical flexibility. Unlike Arafat, who could never let go of the terrorist tool that had brought him wealth, power, and glory, Mr. Abbas sees the situation more cogently. If stopping the violence against Israel best serves his goal of eliminating the sovereign Jewish state, that is his program.

He no more accepts what he so charmingly the other day called the "Zionist enemy" than Arafat did (or Hamas, or Palestinian Islamic Jihad), but he is open to a multiplicity of means to destroy it. As he announced after his electoral victory this week, "the lesser jihad is over and the greater jihad is ahead." The form of jihad must change from violent to nonviolent, but the jihad continues.

And count the many ways to undo the Jewish state: nuclear weaponry, invading armies, mega-terrorism, plain old terrorism, Palestinian demographic fertility, the "right of return," or confusing Israelis to the point that post-Zionist leftists cause the population unilaterally to crumple and accept a dhimmi (subservient) status within "Palestine."

Abbas has been positioned as a "moderate" but his statements during the recent campaign, in which he denounced "the Zionist enemy" and his refusal to use force to rein in terrorist groups are both indications that he may be nothing more than Arafat in a fancier suit.

Finding the Center (if there indeed is one)

Thought at the Meridian, a superb blog from Sweden, is back from a self-imposed hiatus. And its proprietor, Frederick, has moved from center-left to center. He explains:

I can’t see a radically democratic and antitotalitarian stance being developed by the liberal left, let alone the Left as a whole. The fascistoid squabbling going on amongst leftist groups is not only annoying, but deeply disturbing. And I can’t see that that’s going to change in the foreseeable future. Neither can I see any evidence of a decent Left evolving, only decent Leftists. People posting on blogs like Harry's Place, Norman Geras and Socialism In An Age Of Waiting are still carrying the torch of a free and free-thinking Left. However, to me it seems these are only the exceptions confirming the rule. But I hope that they will continue to struggle against the perversions of the Left being perpetrated by so many on the Left and liberal Left as we speak.

For some time now I have felt that I might start blogging again, but from a slightly different, more centrist, angle than before. This is not a radical change in me (from centre-left to centrist), however I feel I have a clearer view of my on position now. Centrist, independent and antitotalitarian.

Like Frederick, I too am dismayed at the tendency of so many on the Left to give a pass to the depredations of totalitarian regimes or terrorist groups, or even sympathize with them to an extent, because they oppose US policy aims. The Left seems much more concerned with fighting faux fascism than confronting real fascism, in part because that would put them on the same page as their idelogical enemies. Better to blame the policies of the West, particularly the US and Israel, for the rage of Muslim radicals. But why the lack of response when Dutch film maker Theo Van Gogh was brutally murdered in liberal, multicultural Holland for his role in a film about Islam's treatment of women? What about the Sudan? Do justice, human rights and gender equality only apply when critiquing Western societies? Frederick is concerned about the lack of a robust, antitotalitarian response from an honest, principled Left (Christopher Hitchens comes to mind). So he now seems himself as belonging in the middle.

Meanwhile, Carla at Preemptive Karma wonders if there really even is such a place as "the middle".

"Don't quit your day job..."

That's the advice many of you would give me (or most bloggers). Unfortunately, in my case my day job has appeared to have quit me. Earlier this week I learned that the Internet startup I have been working for is not going to be able to keep cutting me paychecks. So it goes.

Ironically, this comes at a time when the news is full of headlines proclaiming that the economy has improved somewhat over the past year ("the best year of job growth since 1999" as one report put it). With the election behind us, the big story is suddenly that, gee - maybe we aren't suffering the worst job losses since the Hoover era. On the other hand...

How this turn of events will impact my blogging patterns remains to be seen. Looking on the bright side, I will have more time to post but my focus will obviously be on more immediate concerns, the first of which is to generate some income.

So, please forgive what may seem like crass commercialism, but I thought I might as well mention that I am available to do marketing-related projects, including website development, email marketing - and of course, anything related to writing: promotional literature, white papers, ad copy or even technical documentation. Interested parties can contact me directly at purplestater@centerfeud.com.

California institutes domestic partners law

California law currently prohibits same-sex marriage but the state's new domestic partners law took effect yesterday and by any stretch, it's a big step forward:

A law taking effect with the new year gives gay couples who register as domestic partners nearly the same responsibilities and benefits as married spouses. Heterosexual elderly couples also are eligible.

Same-sex couples in California for the first time will have access to divorce court for dividing their assets, seeking alimony and securing child support. They also will have automatic parental status over children born during the relationship and responsibility for each other's debts.

It guarantees domestic partners a say over what happens to their loved one's remains at death and means they cannot be forced to testify against each other in state courts.

"It won't be as good as marriage because we are talking about a thousand-plus federal benefits that won't be covered," Cornell said. "But a start's a start, progress is progress."

Many gay rights advocates say the domestic partner law heralds a hopeful new era of legal recognition and participation for gay men and lesbians. They hope that is particularly true for those raising children or without the money to pay lawyers to prepare the previously recommended paperwork.

The law is very careful to not grant "marriage" status or anything close to it. It just removes some of the most egregious obstacles to committed gay couples who want to care for each other and raise their families. But of course, some people are never satisfied:

Two groups opposed to marriage rights for gay couples have challenged the law, claiming it violates the intent of a 2000 ballot initiative approved by voters that holds only unions between a man and a woman as valid in the state.

The California Court of Appeal has agreed to hear the case early in the year.

"Whether you call it 'domestic partnerships' or 'civil unions,' homosexual 'marriage' by another name is still homosexual 'marriage,' and the people of California voted against that," said Randy Thomasson, executive director of Campaign for California Families, one of the groups that brought the lawsuit.

There is a respectable conservative argument against same-sex marriage that holds that there are other ways to provide basic legal protections to gay couples in personal matters such as custodial care and wills without undertaking a radical redefinition of the traditional notion of marriage. I don't happen to agree with that argument, but I think it's a defensible one. But if that is the case, why are opponents of same-sex marriage so determined to outlaw civil unions, domestic partnerships or any other arrangement that affords gay families some modicum of legal protection?

Conservatives who oppose gay marriage on principle need to speak out in support of alternative arrangements, lest the rest of us draw the conclusion that their opposition is motivated by mean-spiritedness and a desire to deny rights of their fellow citizens.

(Hat tip: iwasthinking)

Barack Obama: the future is purple

Newsweek's December 27th cover story, "Seeing Purple", profiles Democratic Senator-elect Barack Obama of Illinois, whose keynote address at the Democratic National Convention this past July introduced him to the nation as a potential bridge across the red-blue divide:

Obama doesn't believe that John Kerry lost because of "moral values." It's much more complicated than that. But he knows that the cultural divide and issues like gay marriage and abortion played a role, and that Kerry actually lost among his fellow Roman Catholics. The task now, Obama says, is not to back off on any particular issue but to at least open these cultural subjects for discussion again—and for Democrats to "reclaim and reassert in very explicit language that our best ideas rise out of communal values."

Obama began that process in his now famous keynote speech at the convention ("We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States"), which showed that an upbeat "One America" message still resonates. Running in the primary against white candidates, he did extremely well in heavily white areas. The experience of being cheered in Cairo, Ill., once among the most racist towns in America, was a breakthrough moment. This is not about "diversity" (a word he recognizes as horribly overused) but about embracing our hybrid origins and transcending our often narrow-minded past.

Even so, Obama's own rethinking of where the country should go still contains more questions than answers. How to respect entrepreneurship without allowing corporations to run roughshod? How to balance jobs at home with the benefits of globalization? In a new preface to his memoir, he's better able to describe what he's against than what he's for: "The hardening of lines, the embrace of fundamentalism and tribe, doom us all." Softening those lines won't be easy in today's fractious media culture, even with a unifying spiritual appeal.

And Obama remains concerned about how some Democrats may go about finding religion. "It's dangerous to try to engineer this in some synthetic way through the party. If it's not organic, it comes off as phony. People can sniff it out," he cautions. "Democrats have to say to themselves, 'What are the values we care most deeply about?' then do the hard spiritual work ahead of time. You can't every once in a while just throw in the word 'God'."

Obama's memorable speech at the DNC flew directly in the face of John Edwards' "Two Americas" meme by emphasizing "One America". And it played well, even with conservatives and moderates who saw in Obama a new breed of Democratic politician - one who could rise above the usual identity politics and laundry lists of fashionable causes and instead articulate a message rooted in Democratic core values like social and economic justice, while also embracing more Republican themes like entrepreneurship and individual responsibility.

As a junior senator, Obama is wisely keeping a low profile and pointedly strives to cultivate the image of the new kid on the block who refuses to let his new-found notoriety go to his head. Instead, he emphasizes the hard work ahead and the need to go to school on party elders like Ted Kennedy and Joe Lieberman. All in all, he's off to a good start.

Will Obama be on the ticket in 2008? It is conceivable that he could emerge on the fast track as a strong candidate for the VP slot. And he may be just what his party needs to persuade red-state centrists - an infusion of purple.