Insh'Allah, Iran Will Be Free: I AM AN IRANIAN!

When I think back to just after 9/11, two images stand out in my memory of world reaction. First, I remember the Palestinian woman giving out candy in celebration of the atrocity. The other image I remember was of the Iranian people holding candlelight vigils in honor of the victims. Neither image was widely publicized in the US media, but I remember the rage, and awe that they inspired in me. I mention them today, as a preface to my analysis/opinion of current Middle Eastern events.

The brutal Iranian Mullahs accuse the US of "intolerable" interference in their election, the day after Pres. Obama said that he didn't want to be accused of interfering. Meanwhile, their Hamas puppets are allied with Al Queda in Palestinian Gaza. (link-Worldfocus.org) Can we all get on the same page, now? I understand the President is trying to "extend an open hand" to the Mullahs, but they have clearly slapped it away. This isn't about international politics; it's about freedom vs. oppression, or more basically, right vs. wrong.

Too many in the free world are afraid to pass such judgements, and therein lies our greatest flaw. It is not "biased" to call the Iranian leadership part of an "Axis of Evil," as Pres. Bush labeled them, if it is the truth. The Khomenist regime has shown itself to be as much to it's own citizens, and they are fighting back, with dignity and passion. The familiar cry "Allahu Akhbar," long associated with terrorist suicide bombers, takes on a new meaning when it is shouted across Iran from rooftops all through the night. God IS great, and there shouldn't be any stigma attached to shouting it out loud.

What's happening in Iran is a revolution, beyond a doubt. It should be embraced by all freedom-loving people in the world, especially those in the greater Middle East, where freedom carries a high price. It has been reported that some of the high-level Mullahs are supporting the protesters, as are as some of the Revolutionary Guard commanders, who are refusing to shoot the non-violent protesters. The government-supported militias have been the main force behind the crackdown, but they are creating more opposition to the Ahmedinejad supporters in the government.

Iran is a complex nation, with a population that is much more politically sophisticated than most Western people realize. Thanks to modern technology, we are getting a glimpse of this. The protesters are from all groups and classes of Iranians, and it's the recognition of this fact that has caused the Grand Ayatollah to order a "partial recount." This is an unprecedented action in a theocracy that calls election results "ordained by God." In this case, it seems more clear every day that the election results were "ordained by men," and the protesters are the ones "ordained by God."

I make no predictions of how this will all turn out, and indeed Henry Kissinger said he thinks Ahmedinejad's forces will triumph, on Greta Van Susteren's show Wed. night. However, John Bolton makes a case that Mousavi has, and would continue to support terrorism abroad and nuclear weapons, were he to assume Iran's presidency. (link-Fox News.com) Both of these men know far more than I do about Iran, so I defer to their judgements on these things. I can only speak my own opinion, and my heart is with those people in the streets, as their hearts were with us after 9/11. As JFK once said about the people of Berlin, I say today "I am an Iranian."

Group Identity Politics: A Shield and a Weapon

The appointment of Judge Sonia Sotomayor is being hailed as a "political masterstroke" by many pundits, but the fact is that the Senate Republicans couldn't block her (technically, they could, today, but the vote is not today), if they wanted to. So what was considered so politically terrific about it? Her "compelling" life story is the conventional narrative. However, that doesn't quite wash, because many Republican Supreme Court appointees have had compelling life stories, but it didn't stop the media and Democrats from critcizing them. White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs gave us an idea of what the real political masterstroke was, when he said this:

"I think it is probably important for anybody involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful with the way in which they've decided to describe different aspects of this impending confirmation." (link)

That's when the latent political strategy behind this appointment became visible. By appointing a Latino woman, her judicial philosophy cannot be challenged, because that philosophy is tied into her "identity" as a member of both of those groups. That is, they will characterize any attack on her judicial philosophy as an attack on her race or gender.

This is another of my problems with liberals...group identity politics. Whether race, gender, or sexual orientation, some "groups" are just "supposed" to be liberal. It's used as both a weapon and a shield, politically. In this case, the Obama administration is using it as both. Since she is a "safe" appointment numerically, why not try to alienate the GOP from women and minorities, while they're at it?

There is much more going on with her appointment, but "identity politics" were blatantly on display.in that White House statement. Was it necessary to play that card? Or are her statements of judicial philosophy just a minor distraction, hyped by right-wing zealots like me? In my zealous opinion, she has made some praiseworthy rulings in her time on the bench, and is qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. However, political ideology has been established as a further criteria by none other than my own Sen. Schumer, back in 2001:

"It's the dirty little secret of judicial nominations," Schumer said. "Ideology plays a big role, but it's below the radar screen. All I want is for us to be upfront about it. This doesn't mean a nominee's views on issues like abortion should be the sole determinant in voting for or against - it shouldn't - but since it's one of the questions we all talk about behind the scenes, we should expose our thinking so everyone sees it. What I want is honesty." (link)

Now, Republicans "oppose her at their peril," (link) Schumer says about Sotomayor, echoing the White House line. Let's be honest. Liberals are trying to use "group identity politics" as a shield against scrutinizing her ideology, and as a weapon against any Republicans who dare to try it. This will be an interesting political confrontation, and it's only just beginning.

Is Speaker Pelosi "Detached" From Reality?

I'm sorry to say it, but there seems to be a problem with the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Speaker Pelosi has a serious credibility problem, which has been exposed by the recent "torture briefing" scandal. Her public appearances have had a bizarre quality to them, as if she were on a bad SNL skit. I'm no psychiatrist, but if she's not conciously lying, she's mentally "detached" from reality. By this, I mean she didn't hear what she didn't want to hear. Lots of people do this, or just "misremember" things.

Perhaps it could be dismissed so easily, if she had not accused the intelligence community briefers of "misleading" her. Now, that will have to be investigated, because lying to Congress is a criminal offense. Her comparison of it to the intelligence on Iraq doesn't hold up, either: a briefing about our actions on captives is much different than one about a potential foe's strength and strategy. She's grasping at straws, and it's getting worse.

The facts of this are going to have to come out, unless the President intervenes for Speaker Pelosi. Will he risk the political capital to do this? I doubt it. The whole "torture prosecution" idea has blown up in the Dem's faces, and now the Speaker is caught in the middle of it. She is now shining "a bad light" on her party, instead of it's intended target, the GOP. I suspect Obama to "stay above" this battle, leaving the Speaker to hang in the wind.

I don't know any of the "crucial" facts yet, so this is my personal perspective, from the facts I do know, and Speaker Pelosi's incredible public performances. If I'm right, the Dem's have two choices: get her out as soon as possible, to save their losses in the 2010 midterm election, or blame her for the inevitable losses they will have, and oust her afterwards. The Dems may retain a majority, but Pelosi's speakership, which started in the last two years of the Bush administration, will be a major drag on their tickets, nationwide.

She's "circling the wagons," right now, but this is not going away any time soon. We will see what she was "briefed" on during the Bush administration, if the Congress investigates them for "torture" memos. A cynical Dem might say "take them both down," but I suspect the party will try to "move on," perhaps without Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House.

Whither Obama's Agenda?

Democrats in Congress refused to fund the President's proposed shutdown of the Guantanamo Bay prison. There is good reason for this: it's a bad idea, with no plan for where to relocate the detainees. Now that the Dems are on track to have a 60-vote majority in the Senate, look for more opposition to other promises that Obama made during the campaign.

I know that sounds counter-intuitive, but politically, it's realistic. Democrats are responsible for the direction our country goes, and will be held accountable, just as the GOP was over six of the last eight years. What Congressman wants to be blamed for bringing terrorists into our country, possibly to be set free on our streets?

Other Obama initiatives are likely to face a similar fate. "Cap and trade" is almost certainly doomed to failure in the Congress, and his health care initiative also faces an uphill battle. These political battles will be waged on the Democrat side of the Congress, with Republicans united in opposition.

It will be interesting to see how these play out, and whether Dems who oppose them will be "demonized" by the media, as the GOP routinely has been, thus far. Newly minted Democrat Sen. Specter has opposed Obama in two votes already, without much media attention. They weren't crucial votes, unlike some of the larger issues looming on the horizon.

Americans are focused on politics more than they have been in a long time, and they are worried. Issues like "cap and trade" relate directly to how much money they spend on their basic energy needs. Health care is something that most people want everyone to have access to, but nobody wants to foot the bill for. The American people are stretched to their limit, and it's doubtful that President Obama's further huge, costly initiatives will find much popular support, even from his own party.

MEDIA WARS: NEWS CORP. VS. GE & THE NY TIMES

There's an interesting development in the "culture war" that's been raging in the media for the last few decades. It seems as if the liberal side is losing public support faster than ever before. The NY Times is threatening to shut down the Boston Globe, and may bite the dust itself by the end of the year. It's not surprising that they have reached out to a failing cable channeL/website, MSNBC.com, to share their content.

What's happening here is that News Corp is kicking their butts, soundly. The NY Post, a lowly "tabloid" paper, is weathering the winds of cultural (and financial) change much better than the NY Times, and the Fox News channel routinely dominates in the ratings over MSNBC's "prime time" lineup. In fact, Fox's top host, Bill O'Reilly, has been directly taking on the General Electric and NBC leadership.

O'Reilly's latest stunt was to send the intrepid producer Jesse Waters into a GE shareholders' meeting (link), to ask them about bias at MSNBC. Meanwhile, Sen. John Kerry (who served in Vietnam, by the way) is requesting Senate hearings "to address the woes of the nation's print media." (link) The Boston Globe is his hometown paper, after all.

If the NY Times survives, it will have to adapt to the "real" times. "Hiding" news articles for political reasons, as they did with the "tea party" story, doesn't attract new readers. For a paper with declining readership, that should be priority number one. MSNBC seems to be following another tactic, with not much better results.

With Keith Olbermann as their "anti-O'Reilly," they think that there is as large a "radical left wing" crowd as what they perceive as Fox's "radical right wing" viewers, compounding it with the "adorable" Rachel Maddow vs. Sean Hannity. The only problem with this is that while Hannity is a partisan, he was paired with liberal Alan Colmes for more than a decade. O'Reilly is an independent, with traditional conservative values. All he has in common with Olbermann is the tendency to be a pompous blowhard (a trait I share with both of them, to some degree). Fox is watched by people of all political persuasions, because they do strive to be "fair and balanced."

I don't want to see the NY Times, the Boston Globe, or MSNBC go under. I want to see them become better media outlets. My hometown paper is the NY Post, which is full of crappy gossip and "tabloid" stories, but also manages to report, and analyze much of the local, national, and world news accurately. The Times is an old "institution," but so was the Post, once and now again (it was founded by Alexander Hamilton, originally). Perhaps the Times has to go out of business, before it can come back to being a relevant newspaper for us "worldly" NY'ers, who also care about NY..

As for MSNBC, I'd like to renew my offer of services as on-air talent (link). I have a great speaking voice, and would love to work with Rachel Maddow. I could represent the guy who throws stuff at the TV whenever he listens to her, but I'd do it in an entertaining, even classy way. Hey, what've they got to lose?

OBAMA "OUTSOURCES" CHRYSLER TO ITALY: GOVERNMENT BY "FIAT"

Wasn't this the exact the kind of thing that Obama was railing against in his campaign? Chrysler has a month to complete the sale of their company to Fiat, an Italian car company. I've never been to Italy, but I know something about their cars, and roads, from friends. If President Obama thinks that Chrysler is going to actually sell anything like the cars driven in Europe, he's got another thing comin'. Fiat tried to crack the American market, but they're not "popular" cars here. Branding them "Chrysler" won't change that.

Of course, Fiat may not look to change the models that sell well. Once they take ownership of the company, the government will have somewhat less leverage to pressure them. They will probably end up lobbying to keep the CAFE standards where they are. It's still a free market, and people will determine what sells, not the government. I'm sure the Fiat executives will try to earn a profit on their investment.

On an economic level, this is what must happen, for the company to survive. I can't say if it will work out well or not for the economy, but I find it ironic that Pres. Obama is forcing the sale. He backed Bush's original auto bailout, which turned out to be the wrong move. Now, it's going to take another $6 billion tax dollars to complete the sale. He seems to be facing the reality that he really had no clue why companies and jobs were "going overseas."

There are many problems in our nation, among them the loss of manufacturing jobs to other nations. The fact is that the US is a recipient of thousands of "outsourced" jobs from other countries, many of which are car companies. Fiat's actually "outsourcing," by expanding into the US labor market. I'm sure Italians are saying "we can build Chryslers here!"

I'll admit that I only have 1-1/2 years of experience (more than Obama) at owning a business, and the biggest thing I learned was how not to run a business. While Chrysler will be Fiat's business now, President Obama is now effectively the President of GM, as well. Will his "vision" of the company become "reality," if they don't come up with a plan in 60 days? I hope he has a steeper learning curve than I did. I lost $60,000 owning my nightclub. Owning GM could lose the taxpayers $60 billion, easily. Geithner and the "Auto Brain Trust" better come up with something soon, and sell it to Obama. He's the one who's gonna have to sell it to you and me.

This isn't the biggest thing on his plate, either, which is why I worry about the "big picture." He's got the seemingly incompetent Geithner at Treasury, and Holder as the second coming of Ramsey Clark as AG. Hillary is staking out her policy positions from the State Department, and Sebilius is the newest addition to the list of nominees that can't understand the tax code. These are just a fraction of his challenges.

One can call this "baptism by fire," if you like religious references to our president. What I find interesting is how fast he is to use the power of government radically, and "use the crisis" to advance a bad policy choice. I suppose I feel much as the liberals felt when Bush invaded Iraq, and "restricted civil liberties." While I agreed with those policies, I was disappointed with Bush myself, when he started the "bailout" madness. I was against it then, and still am now.

Government by fiat doesn't work (pun intended). Nixon tried wage and price controls, and it nearly destroyed our economy. This is where President Obama dares to tread, and the result will be the same. Meanwhile, Ford has worked out a way not to take any government money, and stay solvent. While Bush gave the initial bailout to GM, Obama doesn't want it to fail on his watch. Will his "deadline" for GM stand? I have my doubts.

I give the president credit for the deadlines, though the Chrysler-Fiat deal may now be on more favorable terms for Fiat. Then, it may be a good thing, if it saves us from pumping more than another $6 billion tax dollars into a slumping company. GM will be the test of how much this administration wants to control the private sector. Stay tuned, eh?

PS: Read this, from the WSJ OP-ED page! The Obama Autoworks: At GM and Chrysler, politics is now Job One.

HATE IS WRONG! (WAIT, EVEN AGAINST CONGRESS?)

Charles Grassley suggested that AIG execs commit suicide, and then Rep. Barney Frank wanted to publicize their names and addresses. It's time for a revolution in this nation, and I'm not scared to say it! Hating people isn't the same as opposing their ideas, or philosophy. I posted this radical image to show the base hatred in our politics today. Why did I want to put Barney and Chris' heads on spikes? They're not Osama and Sadam (who they replaced, from my original drawing). I'm mad as hell at these guys, and I have no other way to communicate it.

I wonder if this is what drove the Bush and Clinton-haters, and how common it must be among us to hate this way. Luckily, I'm just examining it, with an eye towards avoiding the "hate" trap. It is almost funny, if it weren't such a serious subject.