New To The Urban Dictionary: Pullin' A Palin

A new expression has entered the Urban Dictionary: 

Pullin' a Palin:

1. Quitting when the going gets tough; abandoning the responsibility entrusted to you by your neighbors for book advances and to make money on the lecture circuit.

2. Bizarre move that will damn ambitions for higher office.

Sarah Palin was a point guard on her high school basketball team. How can we "pull a Palin" in terms of basketball strategy? Watch Coach Sarah Palin's "Midcourt to Low Post Pass & Quit" (h/t Sam Seder):

In Iran And Honduras, Obama Resists Cowboy Diplomacy

President Obama has taken a wise stance on Iran, condemning the brutal crackdown on protests following the questionable victory of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad while refusing to drop all dialogue. Conservative figures like John McCain have urged a confrontational, counterproductive course of action. Ahmadinejad has already played the familiar card of blaming the U.S. and Britain; overly hostile declarations would only play into his hands.

A somewhat analogous situation is taking place in Honduras with the military coup against President Manuel Zelaya (upper left). In seeking to change the Honduran constitution to allow him to extend his presidency, Zelaya is violating the law. Yet he was not challenged legally; the military instead removed him by a coup and declared martial law, actions which are also illegal. 

Raw Story details how, once again, right-wing forces in the U.S. are declaring that Obama's position sells out our interests and the forces of freedom abroad. Macon, Georgia, city councilman Erick Erickson writes, ""Barack Obama has fundamentally shifted our foreign policy away from our own national interests in Honduras. He aligns us with the interests of Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and a long list of South American drug cartels." The New York Daily News states, "...we have wound up on the wrong side." Such comments ignore the fact that Obama has joined the U.N., the Organization of American States and most of the world in protesting the undemocratic coup.

The fact is that, like his strategy with Iran, Obama is not letting America take the blame for chaos in Honduras. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, like Ahmadinejad, has tried pointing the finger at the U.S., yet Obama's stance has frustrated him, as reported in The New York Times:

From the moment the coup in Honduras unfolded over the weekend, President Hugo Chávez had his playbook ready. He said Washington’s hands may have been all over the ouster, claiming that it financed President Manuel Zelaya’s opponents and insinuating that the C.I.A. may have led a campaign to bolster the putschists.

But President Obama firmly condemned the coup, defusing Mr. Chávez’s charges. Instead of engaging in tit-for-tat accusations, Mr. Obama calmly described the coup as “illegal” and called for Mr. Zelaya’s return to office. While Mr. Chávez continued to portray Washington as the coup’s possible orchestrator, others in Latin America failed to see it that way.

...In recent years, Mr. Chávez has often seemed to outmaneuver Washington on such issues. He exploited the Bush administration’s low standing after the Iraq war and its tacit approval for the brief coup that toppled him in 2002, and blamed the United States for ills in Venezuela and across the region.

Now such tactics may get less traction, as the Obama administration presses for a multilateral solution to the crisis in Honduras by turning to the Organization of American States. In doing so, Mr. Obama is moving away from policies that had isolated the United States in parts of the hemisphere.

...Mr. Obama’s nonconfrontational diplomacy seems to have caught Mr. Chávez off balance. “Chávez is beginning to understand that he’s dealing with someone with a very different approach than his predecessor,” said Michael Shifter, vice president of the Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington policy research group.

We do have a history of overthrowing governments in Iran and Guatemala in the 1950s, and it would be folly for Obama to follow the advice of right-wingers who call for a belligerent posture. Why would they want to continue isolating the country? Instead of conducting the cowboy diplomacy of George W. Bush, involving threats, war and refusal to talk, Obama is upholding diplomacy and democratic principles abroad, deflecting blame from the U.S. and projecting a more reasonable national image. 

When Iran Does It, It's Torture; When The U.S. Does It, It's "A Matter Of Debate"

The Iranian government has been torturing reformists in order to extract "confessions" for supposed subversive activities following protests against the presidential election. As reported in The New York Times:

Iranian leaders say they have obtained confessions from top reformist officials that they plotted to bring down the government with a “velvet” revolution. Such confessions, almost always extracted under duress, are part of an effort to recast the civil unrest set off by Iran’s disputed presidential election as a conspiracy orchestrated by foreign nations, human rights groups say.

...The government has made it a practice to publicize confessions from political prisoners held without charge or legal representation, often subjected to pressure tactics like sleep deprivation, solitary confinement and torture, according to human rights groups and former political prisoners. Human rights groups estimate that hundreds of people have been detained.

One of the arguments against the Bush administration's use of torture was that it produced unreliable information. One never knows whether a "confession" is made just to end the pain. Ali Afshari (upper left) was tortured by Iran, not the U.S.; nevertheless, his experience is pertinent:

In 2001, Ali Afshari was arrested for his work as a student leader. ...“They tortured me, some beatings, sleep deprivation, insults, psychological torture, standing me for several hours in front of a wall, keeping me in solitary confinement for one year,” Mr. Afshari said in an interview from his home in Washington. “They eventually broke my resistance.”

The problem, he said, was that he was not sure what he was supposed to confess to. So over the next several months, he said, he and his interrogators “negotiated” what he would say — and, more ominously, whom he would implicate. Once his confession was complete, he said, he practiced it for 7 to 10 days, and then it ran on state-run television.

American conservatives who defended the Bush administration's use of torture would no doubt condemn the Iranian use of it and the phony confessions obtained. Their stand is not against torture per se; they're for it or against it depending upon who's using it. Conservatives, who profess a belief in an absolute right and wrong and decry "moral relativism," are quite relativistic when it comes to torture.

The New York Times has been practicing its own form of moral relativism on the subject of torture. Times public editor Clark Hoyt noted the debate that took place among the paper's journalists over the use of the word:

[Washington bureau editor Douglas Jehl] said: “I have resisted using torture without qualification or to describe all the techniques. Exactly what constitutes torture continues to be a matter of debate and hasn’t been resolved by a court. This president and this attorney general say waterboarding is torture, but the previous president and attorney general said it is not. On what basis should a newspaper render its own verdict, short of charges being filed or a legal judgment rendered?” Jehl argued for precision and caution. I agree.

Glenn Greenwald of Salon notes how cautious The Times is when it comes to the United States' use of torture, as compared to the torture practiced by other countries. He refers to the article on Iran cited above:

Virtually every tactic which the article describes the Iranians as using has been used by the U.S. during the War on Terror, while several tactics authorized by Bush officials (waterboarding, placing detainees in coffin-like boxes, hypothermia) aren't among those the article claims are used by the Iranians. Nonetheless, "torture" appears to be a perfectly fine term for The New York Times to use to describe what the Iranians do, but one that is explicitly banned to describe what the U.S. did. Despite its claimed policy, the NYT has also recently demonstrated its eagerness to use the word "torture" to describe these same tactics . . . when used by the Chinese against an American detainee.

The Bush administration's use of torture tainted America's reputation, and it will take a while to remove that taint. The Obama administration has broken with many of the tactics employed in recent years, though its consideration of indefinite detention is certainly troubling. At least for now, we cannot condemn countries such as Iran and China with the same moral authority we once had. An examination of the Times' contradictory use of the word "torture" makes it clear that the moral taint has spread to our mass media.

West Bank "Natural Growth" And The Uses Of Ambiguity

The Israeli government's dispute with the Obama administration is over whether to allow for the "natural growth" of families in West Bank settlements. The Forward reports that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu refuses to use the words "natural growth," preferring to speak about facilitating "normal life." He reflects the ambiguity remarked upon by U.S. peace envoy George Mitchell, who said about "natural growth" that "there are almost as many definitions as there are people speaking." 

Givat Ha'eytam exemplifies this vagueness; despite the fact that it is remote from the settlement of Efrat, it is considered within its municipal boundaries (photo from The Forward above shows the view from Givat Ha'eytam to Efrat in the distance):

Givat Ha’eytam, a lonely hill in the Israeli occupied West Bank, seems like anything but a natural part of the bustling 8,000-person Jewish settlement of Efrat. ...Nevertheless, the Israeli policy that is being widely described as “natural growth” could permit developing Givat Ha’eytam as an extension of Efrat. ...Removed though it is from Efrat, building on Givat Ha’eytam would be regarded by Israel as simply expanding Efrat...rather than creating a new settlement. By prior planning, Givat Ha’eytam falls within Efrat’s municipal boundaries.

Another example of a settlement whose municipal boundaries outdistance its population is Kibbutz Mitzpe Shalem:

Efrat is not alone among the 120 West Bank settlements in having jurisdiction over land well beyond its built-up sector. Among the most generously endowed settlements is Kibbutz Mitzpe Shalem, close to the Dead Sea. The settlement, with a population of just 200, offers housing to nonmembers of the kibbutz and has outlying jurisdiction of some 13.6 square miles — a spread of land equal to that of the central Israeli city of Petah Tikvah which has a population of 189,000.

What are the boundaries of building in the West Bank? The Netanyahu government won't say:

Netanyahu’s office refuses to clarify whether natural growth, as Israel understands the term, would involve expanding settlements beyond the perimeters of their already built-up environments — thereby substantially changing the reality on the ground, with Jewish settlements covering a much wider area — or whether natural growth just involves construction within the perimeters of already built-up areas.

Does building for "natural growth" respond to the needs of the families already living there, or does it attract even more families? That, too, is unclear:

Trying to predict what the pattern will be in the future in order to determine a housing policy creates a chicken-and-egg scenario: The number of West Bank newlyweds who want to set up home in the territories will depend, in part, on how plentiful — and as a result, how cheap — housing there is.

...Dror Etkes, fieldworker for the anti-settlement organization Yesh Din, predicted: “In the bigger settlements, we would probably see further migration from Israel.”

In its editorial "Unnatural Growth," The Forward, a venerable Yiddish/English newspaper hardly unsympathetic toward Israel, states the following:

Obama isn’t being unreasonable. Netanyahu is. The Israeli government’s defense of “natural growth” masks its true intent. Ministers say that families deserve the right to stay in their communities as their broods increase, and that is why settlements should be allowed to add homes, schools and synagogues. That’s a “right” enjoyed by no one else in Israel, or the United States, for that matter.

But governments do have a right — indeed, an obligation — to plan growth in their communities, to zone for appropriate use, to respect the boundaries of adjacent neighborhoods. Most of us cannot build on our property without the requisite permits and permissions, never mind suddenly decide to annex the backyard next door to accommodate a larger household.

...the Israeli public is becoming less supportive of the settlers and more convinced that the growth of outlying settlements is a detriment to national security. So are many American Jewish lawmakers and communal leaders. They are saying what the current Israeli leadership needs to hear: There’s nothing natural, or acceptable, about “natural growth.”

Sen. Grassley's Health Care Solution: "Go Work For The Government"

President Bush famously showed how out of touch he was on health care when he asserted that access to care was no problem: "After all, you just go to an emergency room." Senator Charles Grassley (R) of Iowa recently demonstrated the same aloofness on an issue critical to the well-being and financial stability of millions.

First, a little background. Grassley has stated, "We need to make sure there's no public option." This despite the fact that most Iowans favor a public health plan, according to the Des Moines Register Iowa Poll. Fifty-six percent are in support, thirty-seven percent are opposed and seven percent are unsure.

Grassley, like his Republican colleagues who are vehemently opposed to government-run health insurance, takes advantage of the government's public insurance policy. In a letter to the Des Moines Register, he wrote "I pay $356 a month for Blue Cross coverage, a plan that is available to federal employees." That covers both Grassley and his wife, a bargain compared to most American families. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the average American family pays more than $1,000 a month.

Lest we think that Grassley is completely unconcerned, however, he does offer a solution, as shown in a town hall meeting in Waukon, Iowa. An audience member asked, "My question is...why is your insurance so much cheaper than my insurance and so much better than my insurance?"

First Grassley stated that the questioner should work for John Deere, since they "don't pay anything" for their plan. Grassley then revealed how little he actually knew about his own plan and had to be helped out by another audience member. The original questioner persisted: "Okay, so how come I can't have the same thing you have?"

Grassley's answer showed so much chutzpah that one almost has to admire it: "You can. Just go work for the federal government." Watch:

Sen. Murkowski: Palin Abandoned Alaska

Senator Lisa Murkowski (R) of Alaska (left) released a statement on the resignation of Governor Sarah Palin whose brevity underlined her anger: "I am deeply disappointed that the governor has decided to abandon the state and her constituents before her term has concluded."

Cenk Uygur, radio host of the Young Turks, wrote in the Huffington Post about three possibilities for Palin's action: she wants to lay the groundwork for a presidential campaign; she wants to cash in on speaking fees and a book advance; and ethics investigations.

If the move is part of a strategy to position her for the presidency, it is a strange one; fellow conservatives such as Karl Rove, Senator Chuck Grassley (R) of Iowa and columnist George Will were baffled. Regardless of the reason for Palin's abrupt announcement, Murkowski correctly refers to the action as an abandonment. Will similarly said that Palin was declaring herself a quitter. None of these criticisms are answered by Palin's Independence Day message to supporters.

On her Facebook page, Palin stated, ""How sad that Washington and the media will never understand; it's about country. And though it's honorable for countless others to leave their positions for a higher calling and without finishing a term, of course we know by now, for some reason a different standard applies for the decisions I make. But every American understands what it takes to make a decision because it's right for all, including your family."

Of course, we haven't been told what the "higher calling" is and why it's "honorable" to abandon one's elected position. One would think that Palin would be proud to reveal her noble intentions, especially since they are "about country."

Palin also stated that her administration had "accomplished more during this one term than most governors do in two." I see. She did enough and earned the right to quit. Senator Murkowski, then, is an ingrate.

Saturday Night At The Liberal Curmudgeon: Remembering Sarod Master Ali Akbar Khan

Ali Akbar Khan, the world's foremost virtuoso of the 25-string sarod, died at 87 on June 19. Along with Ravi Shankar, Khan brought Indian classical music to the West. Violinist Yehudi Menhuin, who took him to U.S. in 1955 for a concert at New York's Museum of Modern Art, hailed him as "an absolute genius." Khan performed at the Concert for Bangladesh benefit at Madison Square in 1971, organized by George Harrison; participants also included Shankar, Bob Dylan and Eric Clapton. He lived in San Anselmo, California, and founded a college of Indian classical music in San Rafael. Enjoy the beauty of Khan's performance of "A Lover's Melody":

Conservatives On Public Health Option: It'll Be Cheaper–That's Unfair!

A strange yet revealing conservative critique of a public health care option continues to emerge: it will deliver health care services more inexpensively. Yes, that's supposed to be the problem.

Senator Olympia Snowe (R) of Maine stated, "If you establish a public option at the forefront that goes head-to-head and competes with the private health insurance market...the public option will have significant price advantages." Snowe wants the public option to be a "trigger mechanism" in case private plans fail to reduce costs. The public, though, overwhelmingly supports a public option and does not state it first wants private insurers, with their poor track record, to try providing less expensive services by themselves. Unlike the Republicans, the public's first priority is affordable health care, not the private health care industry.

Conservative columnist George F. Will similarly admits that public health care will be cheaper–and, again, that's the problem:

Assurances that the government plan would play by the rules that private insurers play by are implausible. Government is incapable of behaving like market-disciplined private insurers. Competition from the public option must be unfair because government does not need to make a profit and has enormous pricing and negotiating powers. Besides, unless the point of a government plan is to be cheaper, it is pointless: If the public option conforms to the imperatives that regulations and competition impose on private insurers, there is no reason for it.

Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight summarized Will's position: "The government does not need to make a profit and will have greater leverage with providers; therefore it will deliver the same service for less money. That's unfair!"

President Obama recently questioned these critics of the public option: "If private insurers say that the marketplace provides the best quality health care; if they tell us that they're offering a good deal, then why is it that the government, which they say can't run anything, suddenly is going to drive them out of business? That's not logical."

Sam Seder lampooned this critique of a less expensive public option's negative impact on more expensive private services. Watch:

Scheuer To Beck: America's Only Chance Is Another Bin Laden Attack

Michael Scheuer, author and former CIA employee, told Glenn Beck that another major terrorist attack by Osama bin Laden would have a beneficial effect on America's security:

Beck: Yes, sir. OK. So you have seen this. Do you really, honestly believe that we have come to a place to where those very senior people in the highest offices of the land, Congress and the White House, really will not do the right thing in the end, that they won't see the error of their ways?

Scheuer: No, sir, they will not. Not -- the only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States. Because it's going to take a grassroots, bottom-up pressure, because these politicians prize their office, prize the praise of the media and the Europeans. Only -- it's an absurd situation. Again, only Osama can execute an attack which will force Americans to demand that their government protect them effectively, consistently, and with as much violence as necessary.

Beck: Which is why I was thinking this weekend if I were him, that would be the last thing I would do right now.

Scheuer: Absolutely. (h/t Huffington Post)

So our protection against another terrorist attack comes through another terrorist attack. To call another 9/11 "the only chance we have" is not only appalling, but it presumes that the Obama administration is not concerned about protecting the country. Imagine a guest speaking in similar terms to liberal hosts Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow of MSNBC. We'd immediately hear from Fox hosts like Beck that liberals are traitors and defeatists. Yet here's Beck calmly taking in Scheuer's apocalyptic rhetoric, something Jon Stewart noticed in his commentary:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Osama bin Laden Needs to Attack America
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Jason Jones in Iran

Stewart: What the f*ck is that? And by the way, here's the fascinating thing about our culture. My guess is that you didn't hear me say "f*ck." Because the Federal government is protecting you and your children's ears from that type of profanity. While, Santa's evil twin gets to, uhh...gets to nonchalantly propose the needless slaughter of Americans for the purpose of furthering his national security plan. But, obviously, in this country, everyone's entitled to their dope-pinion. Fortunately, there's a real patriot sitting next to this jerk that can admonish him for suggesting we need bin Laden to kill more Americans.

Fox Commentators' Response To Franken Victory: "The Horror! The Horror!"

In "Heart of Darkness" by Joseph Conrad, the last words of the Western tyrant Kurtz, who had taken over African tribes, were "The horror! The horror!" This was the response of the Fox News crowd upon reporting the victory of Al Franken (D) of Minnesota over incumbent Norm Coleman in their long-fought senatorial race. Watch:

Franken's victory must be especially galling to the right-wing Fox commentators, since Franken also prevailed in 2003 when the network sued him over the cover of his book, "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right" (which I recommend). The plaintiffs' claim that Franken's use of "Fair and Balanced," Fox's wildly inappropriate slogan, constituted trademark infringement was rejected due to the common use of the words, as was the claim that Bill O'Reilly's photo on the cover was an endorsement of the book–especially with the word "Lies" on top of his image.

Now we're told that Coleman put up a "valiant effort over many months." Actually, what he did was protest the recount that went Franken's way and continued litigating despite rulings that culminated in the Minnesota Supreme Court's declaration of Franken's victory. For eight months, he deprived Minnesotans of full senatorial representation and put a tremendous burden on Senator Amy Klobuchar (D).

Glenn Beck voiced his fears, now that the Democrats have a filibuster-proof majority: "You have this serious progressive arm in the Senate. How are you going to be able to stop it?" His concern is over Franken's support for such dastardly ideas as health care for all, alternative energy, labor rights and international diplomacy. Brian Kilmeade asked, "Who's safe now?"

I agree with one point made by Beck: "You don't want me as a senator." I also identify with Eric Kleefeld of Talking Points Memo, who said that the Fox commentators provided him with "a fun dose of schadenfreude."