Diplomacy isn't about dancing with the partner you like best

My children, it is permitted you in time of grave danger to walk with the devil until you have crossed the bridge." FDR commenting on American policy during the Second World War

Soon, I hope, the US, EU, and the Iranians will kiss and make up after trading barbs on the election. Do I think the election might have been rigged? It seems highly possible, but that is irrelevant now now that the Guardian Council finalized the election results. But shouldn't the US strive for a higher standard in its diplomacy and refuse to recognize this tyrannical and undemocratic government? Short answer, NO. Standing firm to a principle of not dealing with countries who rule harshly is not putting the US into a better position within the region. It is also discordant with the US' diplomatic history and current foreign policy.

Some argue that the US cannot negotiate with a regime that does not retain popular support. I have two responses to that ridiculous claim. 1) Obviously MA and the Supreme Leader have popular support. They might not have it all, but that doesn't mean they are a dictatorship without any constituency or legitimacy. 2) If the Obama administration refuses to deal with the current leadership (ie, Netanyahu's dream), they will offer MA and AK ammunition for claims that the US is at fault and Iran is the victim of US imperialism. The Iranians' favorite whipping boy is the US and it will remain so until there is a modicum of diplomatic headway. Further, the US won't make any forward progress on regional strategies if Iran is cast out. Now isn't the time for retrenchment or the philosophy of rejection. If FDR or Nixon refused to work with communists, what would those presidencies have accomplished diplomatically? Not to mention the US' sordid past of relying on and propping up despots. It's one thing to demonize and isolate a state when the US has sufficient political capital internationally, but our country is lacking the latter and cannot afford to pursue a policy of failed containment.

According to the BBC, Iran disqualified the EU from further negotiations and the EU is considering withdrawing its envoys. There is no mention of the US. The Iranian leadership might despise the US, but neither MA or AK are idiots. I wish that they will do their best to bolster their image by sending out feelers to the US soon, because the current regime isn't doing itself any favors at this point. Of course, I could be wrong and the Iranians could flip the bird to the world.

Fareed Zakaria, The Post-American World

I finished skimming Zakaria's Post-American World. He offers a few stinging criticisms of the US and domestic and foreign policy decisions, but one leaves the book with a positive impression on the US and its role in the future. China and India will overtake the US, he argues, and the US, nevertheless, will remain an sizable international figure economically, politically, and as a beacon for the world. Zakaria, an immigrant from India, offers a fascinating perspective as one who emigrated with high hopes for a new life in the US, and those impressions have not dulled in twenty years. In fact--as he lists the ways China, India, and the "rest" will rise over the US and generate a multi-polar world--he notes specific unique cultural values (e.g. critical thinking in schools, spectacular higher education, and entrepreneurial spirit) and demographic strength that separates the US from the surging "rest" will allow it to remain a virile state in the future.

For a reader who spends his or her time staring blankly into books or obsessing over blogs, much of this material won't break new ground. Zakaria's final chapter, "American Purpose," lists policy prescriptions addressing how the US can remedy the recent poor policy directions and systemic economic issues plaguing the US. The author points to a less hypocritical diplomacy and one based less on expansionism and exceptionialism as keys for the US to remain the central broker for international affairs. He correctly insists that the US model of capitalism is winning the world over. I'm not so sure about his claim that the style of government is taking hold everywhere. Still, the final chapter is one of the better and thought-provoking.

Of course, I have problems with specifics and larger themes, and the criticisms are interrelated. Like Thomas Friedman, Zakaria thinks big and examines overarching themes with glimpses of nuance interspersed in the text. Additionally, like Friedman, Zakaria misses the human element and skirts the negative effects of globalization, development, rising, or whatever one wants to dub the adherence to the neoliberal model. When colonialism or exploitative capitalism, American or European, appears it does so ephemerally without any exploration of how it ravaged countries in the past or present. In other words, he neglects to balance the negative with the positive in his effusive lauding of American free market capitalism and globalization. And why not? Negativity doesn't sell books or spread your views on the future from outside of policy circles to the reading public.

I won't snip at him for commenting on the dispossession of farmers in eastern India, thanks in part to the local communist party, for a Nano car plant. (OK, maybe I will a little bit.) At this point, it's difficult to read The Post-American World positively. My assumption is that President Obama's foreign policy meets his desires, for the most part. Despite his prescience on a variety of issues, one cannot fault him for failing to predict the pits of this global recession. He casts off the abysmal household savings rate, credit card debt, mortgages, health care, and poor American economic practices. I would guess that he would rescind those statements. Still, the glossy, cheerful forecasts don't seem as bright, even if the US can right the ship and rein in the rampant foolhardy capitalism practiced in the US in favor of a sustainable vision for the country that partners oversight and ample encouragement for innovation and invention.

Arthur Bryant's BBQ and KC

At my insistence, I managed the nine hour drive from Denver to Kansas City. When we arrived, I was tired and in need of some down time. Doug's friend Tony met us at his home and we left almost immediately for one of my favorite barbecue joints in the country, Arthur Bryant's. Once we arrived, I was in better spirits and excited to eat. AB is the BBQ mecca in KC that attracts politicians, tourists, and fond lovers of BBQ such as myself to a city that is one of the country's homes for barbecue.

I stopped at AB once before and was stunned by the meat and sauces. When a return to KC materialized on the drive to St. Louis, I insisted on AB. I read about another BBQ joint, Oklahoma Joe's, and would have liked to try Gates BBQ, but with little time I didn't think it was the right time for a pleasure eating cruise around KC's best BBQ restaurants. I ordered the brisket and burnt ends, the latter of which is the famous AB selection. (Pork is no slouch when it comes to barbecue, but I usually prefer beef when it comes to eating.) The burnt ends were soaked in sauce with an even amount of carbon that exploded with flavor. As you can guess, the richly smoked and evenly fatty brisket, when combined with the rich and sweet sauce (one of three table sauces), was the perfect compliment to the burnt ends. We drank a Boulevard Brewing Company Pale Ale. After finishing a mug I didn't feel like beer so I grabbed a refreshing, yet not too sacchrine, sweet tea. I left with a full stomach and a content body after driving for so long. Doug wasn't too impressed with his ribs (too tough) and Kate wasn't blown away by her pulled pork (flavor wise). Our host Tony gratefully shared some of his pork that I loved.


For the record, I loved KC, and Doug's friend Tony deserves repeated thanks. Tony--who was a wonderful host on so many levels and is due heaps of praise and plaudits--took us on a driving tour of KC that ended with a stop at the Flying Saucer beer bar (a must for any beer nerd) in the the bar choked Power and Light District. Tony's intricately planned route brought us past through the Missouri side's architecture, campus areas, fantastic art museum (or at least from the outside), and glitzy downtown that is benefiting from urban renewal. We saw the ins and outs of KC that we never would have had the fortune to discover, and Kate and I were duly impressed. If you have an opportunity, take the chance and visit KC, if only for Arthur Bryant's and KC's charm.

The Great Middle West

We've settled back into our lives in Denver and welcome the idea of kicking around Denver for the next two months or so. Big Blue (our decrepit, lemon VW Passat Wagon) tacked up three thousand new miles on the odometer and ran like a charm, which it should considering we dropped approximately 1300 into the car in May and June. Amazingly, we saw all the family with no major conflicts. That minor feat required a fair amount of running hither and thither, and leaving us exhausted and ready to return to our normal lives.

Some of the highlights included seeing Phish at Deer Creek with Kate (despite the sloppy mess), Phish at the Fox, the new wing at the Art Institute on the hoi polloi free night, and, as sappy as it sounds, time spent with family and friends. The most challenging was discovering that a friend may have allowed drug abuse to get the better of him.

I've now listened to most of Phish's early summer tour and saw two shows. I'm exicted they returned to performing, but an element seems out of place or missing for me. Quite possibly, Phish was what I needed at a precise time in my life. As priorities changed, however, maybe they can't fill that niche and the shows don't have the same resonance they once did as I was grasping at who I was and what I wanted from life. I wouldn't attempt to say that I will never listen to Phish again or the band will fade from my interests as that won't happen. My time and passion, on the hand, may never rebuild as the band retakes its throne to the jam band faithful. Oh, well.

Wind Farms in the Center of this Big Expanse

Last summer, we drove from Denver to Rhode Island and back via interstate 80. Our sojourn stopped in St. Louis this year and returned us along I-80. While Fahgs napped through Kansas last week, we passed a massive wind farm in Kansas that left Doug and myself marveling over its size. I also noticed that the number of turbines in Kansas and Colorado grew and dotted the banal landscape along I-80 and I-76. The number of wide load trucks hefting two turbine props was consistent with my recollection from last year even though they were non-existent on I-70.

The House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act yesterday and now it heads to the Senate for potential ratification and I was reminded of a familiar face. Boone Pickens and his half baked climate plan have vanished, for the most part, from the public eye and television cube. In fairness, Boone's pitch featured some feasible options, excluding the compressed national gas fueled cars, and his continuing push for a corridor of wind farms represented one of the highlights. As we drove and passed trucks loaded with turbine props, I contemplated the Pickens plan and the intentions for boosting the percentage of wind power in the US' portfolio of energy sources. My resolution was that massive investments are needed before we can improve the paltry amount of wind farms. We did not see all of the country's wind farms simply by traversing two major corridors, certainly not, but there is considerable room for improvement.

Interactive Map of Creating New Green Jobs with Waxman-Markey

The Center for American Progress created a fascinating interactive map that illustrates a state-by-state breakdown of the number of new green jobs with an investment of 150 billion. The map won't knock your socks off and I think some of the totals can be questioned.

Maps and Chaps

St. Louis Beer

We're resuming normal life in Denver and I'll post a few thoughts on Phish and the Middle West this weekend. I first want to help bring attention to a superb brewery in St. Louis, Shlafly, and a story on their beers, Saint Louis Brewery Leads Microbrew Market. In KC and STL we sampled a a couple of selections and enjoyed them immensely, especially the wheat "No. 15." Of course, Shlafly is overshadowed by Anheuser Busch. The LAT has a nice write-up on the brewery, and I've found the LAT's coverage on craft beer quite impressive.

All Quiet on the Raptor Front

We're wrapping up our trip back to the Middle West with a luxurious night in North Platte, Nebraska. Phish was fun, but I'm uncertain if I'm over Phish or I need some time to let it settle back into my life.

Either way, we had a fun trip and more fried food than you can shake a stick at. Oh, is rural Illinois God's Country or the Land that God Forgot?

What Would Marx Do? WWMD?

The cover of this month's Foreign Policy portrays Karl Marx's bust consisting of bread, crackers, possibly a potato for a nose, and a few other bits that I can't distinguish. Leo Panitch, a political economist and the editor of the Socialist Register, writes on Marx's foretelling of this crisis and his solutions to today's economic contraction in Thoroughly Modern Marx. At two web pages, it's a brief read. Panitch asserts that one of Marx's primary solutions would center on the organization of the working-class (everyone from a San Jacinto pizza delivery man to an person working the line in Peoria's Caterpillar plant) to reduce the neoliberal by-product of disaster capitalism that forces rich and poor alike--at disparate, disproportionate levels--to suffer the fate of market volatility in their daily lives.

In his last sentence, Panitch reminds us that Marx was, above all, a realist that distrusted dreams of grandeur where the market resolves all class and social issues. Marx's prescription would require the socialization of finance capital in a way that would alleviate the harsh peaks and valleys that benefit, above all else, the capitalist class to the detriment of a shrinking middle-class down the destitute poor. Utopian visions of a beneficent hidden hand and rational market actors crumble time and time again as they capitalism reels from shock to shock as all attention obsesses on the health of the market rather than the health of the society as a whole.

Phil Spector Unwigged and Unplugged

Christopher Buckley Locates the Great White GOP Hope: Joe Scarborough

I like Christopher Buckley. Although his writing tends toward a pompous, florid style, he's talented. While that's all well and good, I also must confess that I enjoyed Thank You For Smoking. On the Daily Beast, Buckley pins his hope on the face of the GOP's renaissance: the host of MSNBC's "Morning Joe," Joe Scarborough. Scarborough, according to Buckley, Can Save the GOP. Of course, Buckley cannot write this in the National Review, the magazine his father founded, after supporting Barack Obama's candidacy last fall. Further proof that conservatives can handle dissent and they're the party of the big tent. Or, as Michael Steele prefers, the party of the hat.

How did Buckley arrive at the conclusion that Scarborough is the GOP's Great White Hope? He read his book and stopped on Morning Joe and presto! Buckley's piece examines Scarborough's new book, The Last Best Hope: Restoring Conservatism and America's Promise, and the scion of intellectual conservatism finds that he's what the GOP needs: a realistic, fiscal conservative. He refers to Scarborough as a Reagan lite, but Reagan's neo-liberal approach to spending and explosive deficits while slashing taxes and erasing regulation helped get us into this mess. We're living with the legacy of Reagan's deleterious policies and an imitator of Reagan isn't what the country requires to restore fiscal solvency.

Regardless, Scarborough can be likable, smug, telegenic, and empty-headed. I question whether he'd surrender his MSNBC perch and if he could force the Republican Party to reckon with its ghosts in a meaningful way. The legacy of the Reagan tax cuts fostered a vast disparity in wealth whereas a sizable majority of Americans gained a minor amount and a sizable minority gained a disproportionate amount. And if Scarborough's serious on erasing the budget, he would admit that tax increases are necessary and spending on GOP cash cows, see defense, must decline. Can he do that, possibly from his spot behind the camera on MSNBC. I have my doubts whether he could muster the courage and honesty to repeat those comments on the campaign trail.

Also on the Daily Beast, Mark McKinnon opines on the Republicans of the Future.

Cleveland tourism videos: "At least we're not Detroit!"

Who the fuck still uses a pay phone? It's satire and a comment on the conditions in Cleveland. And it's funny, but I doubt Eric Morgan would appreciate it. Update: neither does my good friend Doug Snyder.

Marc Lynch on a potential "Mousavi effect."

In his blog at Foreign Policy, Marc Lynch asks Could there be a Mousavi Effect? Lynch notes that regimes would have to rethink their Iranian policies if a conciliatory leader replaces Ahmedenejad. Iran's regional power won't shrink and its bargaining position with the US isn't going to undergo an immediate shift to ceasing forward progress on a nuclear energy program. A story in FP yesterday, As Iran Votes, All Quiet on the Western Front, examined Western governments' silence on the Iranian election. I think they know that any chest beating on MA or implicit support of Mousavi could work against Mousavi's campaign. Besides, as noted below and in the NYT, Mousavi has powerful allies in Iran supporting his campaign, specifically Rafsanjani. He doesn't require a Tehran event featuring Obama.

Lynch comments on Arab states, but not on Israel. If MA is gone, and a smoother Mousavi takes his place, it will rob Bibi of his primary villain for insisting on a joint US-Israel "Iran First" policy. If Mousavi wins, he isn't likely to initiate meteoric policy shifts. He might make a better public figure and, possibly, willing to alter Iran's course enough to sate the US. Reagan needed a Gorbachev and Obama might require a Mousavi at this moment, especially with a US backed government in Lebanon. Time will tell, but a fresh face could go a long way in assisting US policy aims in the Middle East.

Douglas Feith on what Obama doesn't understand about the ME.

Feith's narrow-minded reasoning on the region's history and current state appear in his Washington Time (blech) op-ed: "Must-y Cairo Rhetoric." Feith, one of the add wizards who got us into the Iraq morass, examines Obama's speech and finds it all wrong and divorced from regional politics. On issues such as Iran, Feith takes a familiar line by claiming they hate us due to our freedoms, not thanks to our meddling in Iranian politics since overthrowing Mossadegh. And, of course, don't you know, the Palestinians and Arabs will never reach an agreement. Feith comments that their conflict is at least a century old and precludes peace. His article demonstrates his own serious ignorance on the region, not to mention an inability to grasp a basic concept such as contingency. If you're in search of an op-ed that illustrates an incorrect vision of the Middle East and American foreign policy in the region, including one that neglects the US' tarnished history of the region, look no further than Feith.

Total Eclipse of the Heart video - Literal Version

not a bad spoof

Total Eclipse spoof
by chinesedaughter

We lost Voight and the Coach?

Last night, at the Senate-House Republican Dinner, actor Jon Voight emerged from the hothouse of intellectual fervor crackling in the room to deliver a strong rebuke to our president:

"We are becoming a weak nation," he said, calling Obama a "false prophet" and his administration the "Obama oppression." Now I understand why he bit Costanza. He's rabid.

Last week, Craig T. Nelson appeared on Glenn Beck's show and railed against the nation's draconian tax policies. He also claimed he wouldn't pay taxes any longer.

Lebanese elections

Before I hop on the bike for a quick morning ride, the March 14 movement (and American and Saudi influence) triumphed (?). Here is commentary on the Lebanese elections:

Abu Muqawama (at the new home CNAS) "Winners and Losers"

Josh Landis "Syrians Silent and Disappointed but Ready to Put Lebanon Behind Them"

Qifa Nabki "Anatomy of a Victory"

Juan Cole has some info, but I think the above three posts are better.

Mousavi and Iranian elections

Today's Trib copies a story from the LAT (which I think has better ME coverage), "In Iran, disparate, powerful forces ally against Ahmadinejad," exploring the various urban, for instance Tehran Mayor Mohammed Baqer Qalibaf, or former politicians, such as Rafsanjani, who are working openly or behind the scenes to thwart Ahmadinejad and bolster Mousavi's popularity. Not a bad article, and it closes with a telling quote:

"But the primary challenge has been to sway or pressure the supreme leader, who remains the nation's ultimate arbiter of power, to withhold his support from the president.

'"It's very civilized, like a game of chess,'" said one figure in Rafsanjani's inner circle. "'But our game is with Khamenei. Ahmadinejad is just a pawn.'"

Obama's Cairo Speech: My favorite flavor cherry red.

After poring over reviews spanning the editorial spectrum, I'm reminded of the classic Stones song "You can't always get what you want." Those on the left, Electronic Ali and Angry Arab are prominent in this group, justly criticize it for not extending past platitudes and for its light treatment of Israel. (Specifically, his lecturing about the holocaust and failure to mention the war on Gaza.) Right wing critics, who can't line up as much against the president for trying to repair Bush, nagged about his lack of the word terror, the absence of a new policy, referring to Bush's Iraq War as a conflict of choice, and apologizing to Arabs. Of course, he didn't apologize outright, but the US has more than a few mea culpas when it comes to American policy in the region.

There isn't a fresh policy initiative in his speech, which is accurate. However, as I mentioned below, I think this is a tactic in Obama's strategy to soften the image of the US and ease the cultural divide that, while existing long before, sprouted after 9/11 and the Clash of Civilizations thesis was accepted on a popular level. (I'd argue that in American culture, Samuel Huntington's argument was still relatively distinct from common-place discussions until the attacks.) In other words, what we're seeing is the new policy direction with language and a presence unlike any American president.

No president or secretary of state has spoken strongly on the settlements. As critics point out, the issue with the settlements isn't limited to new construction. On the contrary, it's the settlements as a whole. Obama's forceful language won't mean anything if he doesn't back the bluster up with action. He needs to deliver and demonstrate conviction. A fair amount of the comments from random folks and pundits in the Middle East center on the fact that they've heard this talk before, which is true. If he backs it up with action and plays hardball with Binny, fashions a workable Palestinian state that doesn't shun Hamas (Hamas has shown willingness to alter its adamant anti-Israeli stance), and withdraws from Iraq as planned, he can do a lot to improve his and the US' image. In twenty years, we might be able to look back at this as a turning point. I'm not so sure whether my rosy dream will reach fruition, but Obama has one of the best chances.

Oh, and the claim that anyone who wasn't Bush would have gotten the same reception is nonsense. You're telling me that McCain would have gone to Cairo and been the subject of such attention and adoration? Not likely. That's as ridiculous as saying there was no difference between McCain and Obama. It was far more than a choice between the lesser of two evils.

It looks like we're headed for an interesting election in Iran. Farshid Moussavi attracted an impressive following and, apparently, won a televised debate against a somewhat befuddled Ahmadinejad.

Grilled pizzas.

Last night, Kate and I grilled pizzas. I whipped up the dough on Thursday night following a recipe, "Grill, Baby, Grill," on Mark Bittman's blog Bitten. Originally written by Ann Marie Conte, it maintained Bitten's philosophy of minimalism and simplicity in approach and cooking. For the sauce, we used an easy sauce recipe. We rolled the dough out for three small ovular pizzas with a diameter of eight inches or so. They took on a rather irregular shape and were far from perfect ovals. We slathered an even amount of sauce on and topped it with a layer of shaved mozzarella. Our basil hasn't produced as much as we want, but we trimmed a few leaves. We ripped them into small ribbons and placed them on the mozzarella.

We use a gas grill and opted to for foil on the grates. Within five minutes, the crust was browning nicely and turning crispy. A few minutes later, the center was hot and the crust evenly cooked. The end product surprised both of us with its flavor and wonderful texture. We had some concerns about the dough after we accidentally poured an extra tablespoon or so of olive oil into the mix. We rolled out half the dough, so three more pizzas await us. We've though of ways to improve them with various toppings, and we're excited to have a new recipe to experiment with over the course of the summer.

Belize photos

These were posted on my facebook account, but here's a couple for you. After all, you're my friends and you're always welcome.

Jones' Good Ass BBQ & Foot Massage at 119th and Cicero

From the folks behind Jones' Big Ass Truck Rental and Storage. I'm putting this at the top thanks to Doug's complaints that I need to focus on the funny.

Frying the beak for you

Starbucks wins tip suit in appeal.

Last year, former and current employees won a suit against Starbucks for allowing shift supervisors a portion of tips, and required that the coffee giant pay 100 million in restitution. A California appeals court overturned the findings yesterday. A gent in my Arabic class last summer was insulted that someone would bring the suit and win. He stated that they're doing the same amount and type of work, and thus deserved a share of tips. While discussing the topic, his impassioned commentary convinced me to avoid any disputes while I still faced five hours of Arabic. And, in part, his logic made sense to me until I read an article in today's Trib. I'm sympathetic with the shift supervisors because they have to work as baristas and, in this time the same as any, those folks need the money to survive.

But I have a problem with Starbucks' defense and my former classmates' argument. The shift supervisor earns three dollars more an hour, and can work up to 95% of the time as a barista. The average tip sharing is 1.71 an hour, according to Starbucks. I don't think I understand why they deserve the tip sharing if they're earning more and working 95% of the time as a glorified barista with even a little supervisory responsibility, according to Starbucks' insistence:

"Although supervisors have some authority to supervise or direct baristas, they can't enforce those directions and can't hire, discipline or terminate them, the Seattle company said."

Of course, there's a large problem with permitting any supervisor to dip into the pool of tips of the regular barista, regardless of wage disparities. I am open to argument in favor of Starbucks, but I'm not convinced that the shift supervisors deserve any apportionment of the tips if they're already paid three dollars more an hour, still retain some supervisory function, and the average tip sharing doesn't allow the regular barista to ease the wage difference. There's no guarantee that the shift supervisor will out perform a standard java jockey. Despite Starbucks' claim, obviously they can enforce directions otherwise they wouldn't be a supervisor. Yes, they might have to work harder, but that's a given once you rise into a management position (at any level) and one's remuneration increases.

It's obvious why Starbucks wants to win. 100 million at a time when the economy is failing, Starbucks battered stores, and it tried to reinvent itself with an all-day training session for baristas and new drinks, the company doesn't want to pay. Even though Starbucks treats its labor force well with perks such as health care, stock options, and tip sharing, corporate welfare exists for a reason: to prevent a potential organization of its workers into a union. Labor organizers, such as UFCW, have a more difficult time appealing to workers at Starbucks and Costco who benefit from corporate welfare than those at Wal Mart and Sam's Club. I don't want to paint Starbucks as a behemoth that cares little for its massive labor pool, because I'm not sure it's the case. That being said, Starbucks opposes EFCA and organized labor due to the elemental reason that it could stand to lose if workers unionize and demand better treatment.

It's not an accident that a part-time barista can earn a modicum of health care through Starbucks. In an economy based on consumption and service jobs, baristas and the folks working at malls are the modern-day auto workers and other non-skilled laborers who filled the ranks of the CIO.

Edit: Okay, I spoke with a friend who worked as a shift supervisor. She informed me that her pay increase was nothing over a dollar, and she remember it as a sixty cent pay difference. While that was a couple of years ago, she also said that her responsibilities were minimal and entailed knowing the safe combo, having keys, and retrieving and dropping off money. I know that's not scheduling, managing a store budget, hiring, firing, etc., but that's a hell of a lot of responsibility. I have less of a quibble if it's only a dollar's difference in wages, but three and tips still seems too much for me when someone has that level of responsibility.

Ernest May, long-time American and international historian at Harvard since 1959, dies at 80.

Ernie May, who taught at Harvard for 55 years, is the intellectual father of countless American foreign relations and international historians, not to mention the European historians and political scientists he taught at the John F. Kennedy School. May was a long-time faculty member and administrator who remained active and whose imprint continued on newly minted PhDs within the past year or two. Methodologically, May encouraged students to think outside the comings and goings in the halls of Foggy Bottom and the White House, and to examine international events as well as public opinion and smaller actors. On top of that, he was an extremely nice guy (from everything I've read and heard), which isn't always a given at academic powerhouses like Harvard or in academia in general.

Ernie May, 1928-2009

Obama's new language on Israel and shades of Ike.

As he prepares to leave for his Middle East trip, Obama is talking up "new honesty" with Israel.

1. He isn't delivering platitudes on the US' friendship with Israel, special relationship nonsense, etc. On previous trips to Arab countries, American presidents usually deliver perfunctory hyperbole on Israeli-US relations.

2. I don't know many presidents who've spoken on the need to speak honestly with Israel about its foreign policy and the concept of Israel being its own worst enemy with settlements. Eisenhower was truly the last president who played hardball with Israel. Clinton couldn't get Ehud Barak to budge, and that was due to his glad-handing of Israel and AIPAC. In other words, when he really wanted Barak to sing his tune, he couldn't because he didn't hold a stable policy line.

Maybe Obama won't hold true to the current rhetoric, but few presidents have tread this ground.

Michael Moore, "Goodbye, GM"

Repeating his call to retool Detroit to manufacture bullet trains, windmills, light rail rails and cars, and hybrids, Michael Moore in the Huffington Post called for drastic transformation of GM's production capabilities:

"Well, that's a start. Please, please, please don't save GM so that a smaller version of it will simply do nothing more than build Chevys or Cadillacs. This is not a long-term solution. Don't throw bad money into a company whose tailpipe is malfunctioning, causing a strange odor to fill the car.

100 years ago this year, the founders of General Motors convinced the world to give up their horses and saddles and buggy whips to try a new form of transportation. Now it is time for us to say goodbye to the internal combustion engine"

I think he's absolutely right, and it would produce a great deal of jobs for many areas of the country that sorely need them from decades of crippling deindustrialization. Moore correctly points out that when in time of military crisis Flint and other production centers rapidly retooled for wartime necessity.

I doubt that there would be such a drastic reimagination for the manufacturing capacities for GM. A nice dream, though? Sure is.

Cheney: The Iraq War saved lives. Wtf.

Taken from thinkprogress:

CHENEY: The problem we were faced with in the aftermath of 9/11 was the possibility of another 9/11-style attack, only with much deadlier technology, a 9/11 with nukes or biological agents of some kind. That concern drove a lot of our thinking in that period, in those months after 9/11. … I think it was a sound decision to make. I think it was an important part of our overall strategy in the Global War on Terror. I think it saved lives.