« November 2007 | Main | January 2008 »

December 28, 2007

A world at war

ongoing_conflicts.png

Some end-of-year food for thought:


Sometimes I have serious doubts about the evolutionary soundness of the human brain.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 9:38 AM | Comments (18) | TrackBack

December 27, 2007

Benazir Bhutto assasinated

A suicide bomber killed dozens at a Bhutto rally, but she apparently died from gunshot wounds to the neck and chest.

Her accomplishments are remarkable—the first elected female prime minister of Pakistan at 35 and widely popular. Her death wasn't entirely unexpected. A similar attack occurred when she returned from exile earlier this year, and she was very courageous to continue pushing for democracy in Pakistan.

I heard Bhutto speak at Trinity University in 2002 on “The Role of the U.S. as the Only Remaining Superpower and Choices To Be Made in the Muslim World." She called for democratic reform and gender equality in Pakistan, but I couldn't shake the impression that she also had her eye on a return to power.

Now the question of the day is: What happens next? How much will Bhutto's death destabilize the region? Will Musharraf use the incident as an excuse to postpone elections? An unstable Pakistan is much more worrisome than an unstable Iraq, and at this point it seems like our only options are "bad" and "the shit has hit the fan."

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 9:44 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

December 18, 2007

The politics of hope

I'm tired of war. Not just what's going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the culture wars that have shaped U.S. political discourse for decades. The battles that sprouted out of the countercultural revolution of the 60s and 70s—which played an important role in advancing civil rights and was a collective step forward—but have devolved into divisive roadblocks to further progress.

Andrew Sullivan refers to "the debilitating, self-perpetuating family quarrel of the Baby Boom generation that has long engulfed all of us." The Right has its War on Christmas and the War on God and a dozen other perceived assaults on "conservative" values. The Left has its "Two Americas" and the "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" and other brushes for painting its own dichotomous portrait of the political landscape.

Sullivan thinks it's a generational issue. But having matured under divisive Clinton and Bush presidencies and grown accustomed to the anonymity of the Internet, which allows partisan bickering to descend to an entirely new level, post-Boomer generations may emerge more divided than their predecessors.

Not that there isn't a grain of truth in some of these issues. But it's how the messages are presented that is frustrating and, ultimately, counterproductive. Everything is "us versus them." Good versus evil. Those on the political extremes truly view politics as battle—the only way to win is to fight until the enemy is defeated. And those in the middle... they are turned off by the vileness and often stop participating. They lose hope.

Which brings me to Obama. I'm certainly not the first to articulate the belief that Obama is the one candidate that can transcend this divisive environment—Sullivan made the case in his cover story for The Atlantic and David Brooks touches on it in his latest NY Times column:

Some Americans (Republican or Democrat) believe that the country’s future can only be shaped through a remorseless civil war between the children of light and the children of darkness. Though Tom DeLay couldn’t deliver much for Republicans and Nancy Pelosi, so far, hasn’t been able to deliver much for Democrats, these warriors believe that what’s needed is more partisanship, more toughness and eventual conquest for their side.

But Obama does not ratchet up hostilities; he restrains them. He does not lash out at perceived enemies, but is aloof from them. In the course of this struggle to discover who he is, Obama clearly learned from the strain of pessimistic optimism that stretches back from Martin Luther King Jr. to Abraham Lincoln. This is a worldview that detests anger as a motivating force, that distrusts easy dichotomies between the parties of good and evil, believing instead that the crucial dichotomy runs between the good and bad within each individual.

If you're unconvinced, watch (or rewatch) the speech Obama gave at the 2004 Democratic National Convention below.

Maybe it's just talk. Obama may not be able to fulfill many of his promises, and his rhetoric may just be fancy packaging for an empty box. But after years of serious, but solvable, policy issues being framed in divisive language or overshadowed by unrelated personal attacks, packaging matters.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 10:45 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

December 12, 2007

Bah, Humbug?

Did you know that "Christmas is a holiday of great significance to Americans and many other cultures and nationalities?" I do, thanks to the taxpayer-funded work by the House of Representatives, who passed a resolution yesterday recognizing the importance of Christmas and Christianity.

The specific action points were as follows:

(1) recognizes the Christian faith as one of the great religions of the world;

(2) expresses continued support for Christians in the United States and worldwide;

(3) acknowledges the international religious and historical importance of Christmas and the Christian faith;

(4) acknowledges and supports the role played by Christians and Christianity in the founding of the United States and in the formation of the western civilization;

(5) rejects bigotry and persecution directed against Christians, both in the United States and worldwide; and

(6) expresses its deepest respect to American Christians and Christians throughout the world.

That's it. There were no binding laws tied to the bill, and it accomplished little other than expressing the sentiments of 372 Representatives (only 9 voted against it).

Why do I care? For one, it's a waste of taxpayer money. Everyday, Congress wastes time on nonbinding resolutions like this that have no legislative function. They already have three-day work weeks, and when you factor in the time they vote on meaningless resolutions, they're lucky to get in a solid day's worth of work in a week.

But at risk of sounding Scroogish, there's another reason I don't like this resolution. Congress is making a habit recently of passing resolutions that, if they were binding pieces of legislation, would be in direct violation of the Constitution. A few months ago Congressed danced around free speech when it condemned a MoveOn.org ad. And now they're expressing support for Christianity, when the first amendment very clearly reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.."

I know it's a moot point since the resolutions are nonbinding. But why waste the time introducing and voting on them? There are plenty of domestic and international problems (the war, health care, the environment, etc.). Surely Congress could find something meaningful to do for just three days a week.

UPDATE: They also passed a similar resolution to acknowledge Ramadan.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 9:39 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

December 7, 2007

The future is now

China is well on its way to becoming a world superpower, and Panama is preparing. From the BBC:

Panama is moving to make the teaching of Mandarin compulsory in all schools, in recognition of China's growing importance in the world economy.

The bill's supporters say boosting the number of Chinese speakers will help increase Panama's competitiveness.

China is the biggest single user of the Panama Canal that connects the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans.

The bill's supporters recognize that English is the international language of business but say that with China's increasing economic influence, Mandarin is set to be an indispensable language.

Panama has important commercial links with China, with bilateral trade running at $1bn (£500m).

With China on the rise, and the United States' status in the world falling--due to the mess in Iraq and our struggling economy--our days as the lone superpower may be numbered. Dealing with this new balance of power may be one of the greater challenges the next administration faces.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 12:35 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

December 6, 2007

I don't heart Huckabee

Huckabee seems like a nice alternative to Giuliani and Romney, but he's a pastor in politician's clothing. For some, that's why he's appealing, but I will not vote for anyone who literally believes that God wants him/her to be president. Watch the video.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 4:13 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

December 5, 2007

The case for Obama, Remashed

An employee of web start-up Searchles e-mailed me about their new video editing tool that allows you to edit and mash YouTube videos, and I decided to give it a try with the "case for Obama" videos--two clips from 2002 contrasting how Senators Obama and Clinton approached the potential war in Iraq. For anyone who considers the war on Iraq to be one of the top issues in the 2008 election, the case couldn't be anymore clearcut:

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 8:51 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

December 4, 2007

Weasel words

The National Intelligence Estimate has concluded that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Does this mean we should stop beating the drums of war and fear-mongering about a nuclear Iran? Not to Bush. From today's press conference:

"Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous and Iran will be dangerous if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."

"What's to say they couldn't start another covert nuclear weapons program?" Bush asked.

"Iranian entities are continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so."

Notice the conditional statements. He's claiming Iran is a threat... at least the could potentially become one... if they decide to... and had the knowledge to follow through with that decision... and maybe we poke them with a big stick. This article in The Onion has never been more relevant.

UPDATE: In an interview with Charles Gibson, Bush acknowledge that Iran has a right to pursue a civilian nuclear program, saying "it's the sovereign right of Iran to have civilian nuclear power, and I agree, and I believe that."

But he went on to say this: "But the problem is, is that it's, what's dangerous is their desire to learn how to enrich uranium, and, because the enrichment process could lead to a weapon."

I admit I don't have an in-depth understanding of nuclear technology, but it's my understanding that enriching uranium is a necessary step in producing nuclear energy. Perhaps someone with a better understanding of nuclear technology could explain whether Bush is completely contradicting himself or not.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 2:22 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack