The Jehovah’s Witnesses are on the prowl in our neighborhood. Or maybe it’s the Mormons. In either case…Flee! Hide! Lock your doors! Save the children! Do not engage under any circumstances!
Neighborhood Proselytism Alert!
Joe Scarborough Really Despises Olberman
On Morning Joe today, Mark Sanford’s affair was, of course, a major topic. But Joe castigated the “cable news pundits” from the previous night who took “unbridled glee” in Sanford’s fall. Scarborough said some of those pundits “are on this network.” And he likened them, in a way I haven’t quite figured out yet, as the Jim and Tammy Fay Baker of pundit class. Or something like that.
He’s obviously referring to Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow, the unabashedly liberal show costs in the evening lineup. I’ve heard him, at other times, criticize Olberman in particular, sometimes by name.
Scarborough drips with disdain for Olberman. I’m not sure why, but I suspect it has more to do with style than politics. Yes, Olberman’s a liberal and Scarborough is a conservative (who just published a book about the conservative movement in which he strongly criticizes Barack Obama). But I think it has more to do with fairness.
Olberman is a sensationalist who gets his jollies using his considerable verbal skills to criticize anyone who’s not a liberal. Scarborough, on the other hand, restrains his conservative leanings in order to treat guests fairly, and to take a balanced view of both sides of an issue. He regularly criticizes Republicans. This makes Morning Joe infinitely better than Olberman’s show, and is why Joe manages to draw such a broad range of guests.
This morning, after going on about this, Joe turned to Mike Barnacle and said, “Should we name names, or go to commercial?”
Barnacle cautioned, “I would go to commercial, Joe.” And they did. I was disappointed, but I suspect Barnacle’s call was the prudent one.
Book: The Inheritance: The World Obama Confronts
I highly, HIGHLY recommend David Sanger’s book “The Inheritance: The World Obama Confronts and the Challenges to American Power.” Sanger, Chief Washington Correspondent for the New York Times, really helps you understand the dynamics in dealing with various countries. We hear lots of posturing from political pundits on cable news, with simplistic, hardline answers to world issues. Sanger takes us behind the scenes, where we see nuance in all its complex varieties.
The book is divided into 8 parts, with 2-4 chapters in each part. The first five parts deal with a specific country.
A couple themes emerge:
- In every chapter, we see how America was unduly distracted by Iraq. We lost opportunity after opportunity because all of our focus was on Iraq.
- Dick Cheney’s hardline influence dominated US foreign policy during the first six years of the Bush Administration.
- During his last two years in office, George Bush, having marginalized Dick Cheney, began getting a lot of things right. But in most cases, it was too late.
Part 1: Iran. The first chapter is a fascinating look at Iran’s nuclear program and its efforts to build The Bomb. There is a lot of spycraft here, as America (and other countries) tried to learn what exactly Iran was up to. And there were some incredible breakthrough. When it comes to electronic intelligence-gathering, the USA is GOOD.
Sanger also tells stories about Ahmadinijad which show what an idiot the Iranian president truly is.
Part 2: “Afghanistan: How the Good War Went Bad.”
Part 3: “Pakistan: How do You Invade an Ally?” These chapters explain the double-dealing deceptions of Musharaff, the political and religious complexities of this country, and how Pakistan is obsessed with threats from India. We learn much about Pakistan’s nuclear program–how its weapons are secured, and how nuclear technology was given to other countries.
The chapters tell about numerous diplomatic missions from the US, as we attempted to keep the regime on track and nudge them in certain directions. Sanger tells about US Special Forces attacks into Pakistan, and how the current regime is seriously threatened by its own internal Taliban.
Part 4: North Korea: The Nuclear Renegade that Got Away.” This section begins with the story of the Syrian nuclear installation that Israel destroyed in 2007. It was being built by North Koreans right next door to Iraq–but we didn’t know about it. Israel, on the other hand, had pictures from inside the facility. This section mostly illuminates the failed approach of the Bush Administration.
Part 5: “China: New Torch, Old Dragons.” This is a fascinating look at modern-day China. While we were bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, China was gobbling up and investing in resources throughout the rest of the world, especially in Africa. It’s a bit worrisome.
Part 6: “The Three Vulnerabilities.” Sanger goes deep in explaining how the US is vulnerable to nuclear attack, biological attack, and cyber-attack (triggering economic collapse). These are scary chapters.
The book represents excellent reporting, with behind-the-scenes stuff none of us have heard about before (and never will hear about on shallow cable news). If you really want to understand these countries, and the complexities of US foreign policy in dealing with them, I highly recommend “The Inheritance.”
Husbandly Self-Concern
Last night, Anderson Cooper interviewed the husbands and a sister of the two US female journalists imprisoned in North Korea. The two women have been sentenced to 12 years of hard labor.
What struck me as wierd were statements by Iain Clayton, husband of Laura Ling. Rather than expressing concern for his wife, he kept bringing it to himself, as if he was the one suffering.
- He said he couldn’t imagine going through the next 12 years without his wife, that it’ll be very hard for him. He said nothing about what those 12 years mean to Laura.
- He said his fifth anniversary is coming up, and he doesn’t look forward to spending it alone. He said nothing about how Laura will spend their fifth anniversary.
Iain: it’s not about you.
The Iranians at Our Table Tennis Club
I spent quite a bit of time tonight talking to Tim and Tina, two Iranian immigrants who came to our table tennis club. I had talked to Tim before; he lives in Defiance, Ohio, about an hour away, and he’s a very good player. Tina, his sister, was visiting from Chicago. She came in her sweats, ready to play–and she wasn’t bad.
Tina came to the States in 1971, Tim in 1976. The Shah was in power; it was a dictatorship. Tina earned an Economics degree, landed a good job, and earned her US citizenship. Then, in 1979, she took a leave of absence from her job and traveled back to her homeland. She found work with a think tank of some kind in Teheran, working alongside eight Americans employed by IBM.
But she became very worried about what she was sensing. “This is not good, what’s happening,” she decided. She warned her coworkers, said they needed to leave the country. But they weren’t worried. “Nothing’s going to happen. We’re perfectly safe,” they told her.
But Tina didn’t believe it. She could feel something ready to explode, and she didn’t want to be there when it happened. So she packed up and left. Two weeks later, Iranian students stormed the US Embassy.
She had given her card, with her address info, to the IBMers. Said, “When you get to the States, call me.” Some of them did. And I’m sure she told them, “I told you so.”
I asked Tim, “What is something Americans need to understand about Iranians? What don’t we understand correctly?”
He mentioned the culture being different, but then said, “Iranians are a peaceful people.” He paused. “But everybody is like that. Wherever you go in the world, people are mostly peaceful.”
I said, “I’m sure you’re fascinated by what’s happening in Iran now.”
Tina said, “The people are MAD. It’s not about Ahmadinejad or the other guy. The people are just MAD. They’re tired of the way things are. They want things to change. You can see it in their eyes. They are ANGRY.”
It was almost amusing how she kept emphasizing that.
“The Iranian people want the same things we want,” she said. “And they want to vote, and have their vote count. They couldn’t vote under the Shah.”
I said, “Does it bother you when Americans talk about Iranians as being evil?”
She said without hesitation, “Well, Ahmadinejad is evil.” And she put the ruling clerics in the same category. She and Tim talked about how idiotic, incompetent, etc., Ahmadinejad is. They said the Iranian people are tired of his nonsense, of the stupid things he says, of the way he embarrasses the country.
I mentioned the three Iranians who attended Huntington University in the mid-1970s. I said many of us wonder what happened to them. Did they go back to Iran and get caught up in the revolution? Did they die in the Iran-Iraq War?
Tina said, “If they were here in 1975 or 1977, they didn’t go back. Why would they? Who would want to go back?” She figured they were still in the States somewhere. Like her.
Seeking Justice for the Wrongly Imprisoned
Justice is finally occuring for the 17 Uyghurs who have languished in Guantanamo’s prison for nearly seven years. But it’s very complicated.
Four Uyghurs were relocated from Guantanamo to the island of Bermuda. This angered:
- China, which opposes releasing Uyghurs to anywhere but China. (We apparently allowed Chinese intelligence agents to participate in or at least observe the interrogation of Uyghurs at Gitmo. GWB sure had backbone!)
- Great Britain, which didn’t learn about the deal until it was almost done. Bermuda is a British territory.
- Newt Gingrich, Sean Hannity, and other right-wing sensationalists who stupidly insist the Uyghurs are terrorists.
Most of the folks at Gitmo fought against the US in Afghanistan. A good number were part of Al Qaeda. But not all.
In 2005, the Bush Administration declared that the Uyghurs were not terrorists and shouldn’t have been imprisoned. Some were kidnapped by Pakistani entrepreneurs who sold them to the CIA, claiming they were Al Qaeda. Others were just in the wrong place at the wrong time, with the wrong color of skin.
The Uyghurs are ethnic Chinese who, facing persecution at home, relocated to Afghanistan in search of a better life (most of us would not have chosen Afghanistan). Some may or may not have been seeking the overthrow of the Chinese government, as the Chinese government insists they were.
The first four to be released are now free men in Bermuda. The remaining 13 Uyghurs will be resettled on Palau, an island in the South Pacific.
Fox News, of course, us up in arms about releasing the Uyghurs. They didn’t oppose releasing them in 2005, when Bush was in office. But now that Obama is President, they think releasing innocent Uyghurs to “a tropical vacation” is the worst of sins.
They were torn from spouses, children, and parents seven years ago. They’ve been unjustly imprisoned for seven years. They were uprooted from a land they had made home, and will now be forced to make a new life in a totally foreign country. As a Christian seeking justice for the innocent and powerless: LET THEM GO.
Shepherd Smith Strays from the Talking Points
Sometime last year, I remember when Shepherd Smith, Frank Luntz (the guy who does the focus groups), and some political consultant were the guests on a Fox News show. They were talking about Guantanamo Bay. Smith and Luntz both spoke very strongly against keeping people imprisoned indefinitely at Gitmo. Smith said it was a violation of the US Constitution.
Well, that really surprised me.
Now there’s a video in which Shepherd Smith talks about the email he receives from Fox viewers. He describes it as really scary stuff.
Shepherd Smith better watch himself. He’ll get himself fired.
There’s another video on Youtube in which Chris Wallace really goes after those three brainless anchors on Fox & Friends, whom I affectionately refer to as Gomer, Legs, and Squirrelly. He criticizes them for what he describes as two hours of Obama-bashing over something he felt they were taking out of context. Wallace, fortunately, has stature and credibility to spare, and could easily land somewhere else. I’m not so sure about Shep.
If Guys Planned Baby Showers
L-r: Jonathan (brother), me (uncle), Tom and Paula, someone else, DJ (Stu and Joyce’s foster son), Dad (soon-to-be great-grandpa), Benjamin (brother), Stu (soon-to-be-grandpa).
This afternoon I attended my first baby shower. Yes, a co-ed baby shower.
It was for Paula Merkle, my niece (my brother Stu’s daughter). She’s a bit on the unconventional side, at least thinking-wise, and evidently didn’t want to exclude her three brothers. They’re all close, and I’m sure she figured any event is more fun when her brothers are involved. As it turned out, oldest brother Curt had to work, but Ben and Jonathan were there. And, of course, her supremely beloved Uncle Steve.
Tom and Paula were married two years ago, and live near Convoy, Ohio. Tom is an electrician in Van Wert, and Paula manages “The Bridge,” a Christian bookstore in Van Wert. Paula is a very aggressive volleyball player. Tom is…tall.
I, of course, held certain reservations about attending a baby shower. Like: games. Or, as women who attend baby showers normally say, “stupid games” or “silly games.” While these games may ultimately produce some laughs, I deeply doubt that women head off to baby showers excited about the games. I’m certain Pam doesn’t. The games are something they must endure. Something they mindlessly feel must be done, else it’s not a real baby shower.
I suspect that husband Tom, Stu, or the collective brothers vetoed the games. “If I have to play silly games, I’m not coming,” I can see any of them threatening. On the other hand, I don’t see Paula being particularly excited about games, either. And she would be one to question tradition. “Is there anything in the Bible that demands that you have games at a baby shower?” she might ask.
So there were eight guys at this shower. I don’t know if we ruined the event for the ladies. Or maybe, without the games, they too found it tolerable and less stressful.
Actually, since Paula’s having a boy, guys SHOULD be there. Don’t you think?
In fact, perhaps the whole baby shower concept needs a remake with a male twist. If guys were in charge of planning a baby shower, it would look something like this:
- No games.
- More food, but nothing homemade. Instead: lots of pizza delivered.
- Money, instead of gifts. Except maybe for a super-soaker, for when the kid is 7.
- No Hallmark cards. Absolutely not.
- A televised football game playing in the corner.
- Okay, the women can bring dessert. We need dessert.
- Random burping and grunting.
- Nothing pink or baby blue in sight.
- In fact, no decorations whatsoever.
- Boisterousness.
Would that be so bad?
Books: Man Who Smiled, The James Deans
Just finished Henning Mankell’s “The Man Who Smiled,” an Inspector Wallander mystery. Started out a bit slow, with Wallander agonizing over having killed a really bad guy in the previous book. He finally works through his emotional trauma, after months and months, and goes back to work.
The Swedes are very squeamish. Spencer, in good American fashion, would just shoot a baddie and go on with life. Wallander gets all introspective and is ready to quit the force. Wallander’s emotional fragility gets old. For me. Nevertheless, Mankell’s books are nearly always excellent.
I’ve read eight Wallander books now. This wasn’t among his best. THE best was still “The White Lioness.” That was a masterpiece.
Before this book, I finished “The James Deans,” by Reed Farrel Coleman. It introduced me to a private eye named Moe Prager. An interesting kind of guy, former New York cop (most private eyes are ex-cops). The plot was kind of a two-parter: solve one case, then solve it again. It was enjoyable, but I probably won’t bother reading another Moe Prager book. Too many other mystery protagonists I care about more.
 |
